IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5291 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2009 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar .... PETITIONER Versus Shri Santokh Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 25.4.2008 (Annexure P- 5) and 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, respectively, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been accepted and the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,362/- along with interest. A perusal of the order, Annexure P-7, indicates that the authority has taken notice of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices vs. Smt. Sham Dulari & others (CWP No. 7576 of 2006), decided on 18.5.2006), whereupon relief has been CWP No. 5291 of 2009 -2- granted to the respondents. It has further been contended that the order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The same, however, has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been very fair in appending the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, as Annexure P-8, reported as 2006 (3) SCT 577. Considering the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an additional issue of delay on the part of the respondent in approaching the authorities. The issue has been dealt with in impugned order, Annexure P-5. It has been recorded that delay was caused for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and therefore, is condoned to meet the ends of social justice. I find no reason to interfere with the said reasoning. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. April 01, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE