CWP No. 15855 of 1995 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15855 of 1995 Date of Decision: 22.04.2010 Rattan Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for respondent No.3. ***** MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing orders dated 7.9.1995 and 13.9.1995 calling upon the petitioners to deposit the excess amount of gratuity paid to them on the ground that the retired employees of Municipal Committees were entitled to get facility of gratuity as per the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II and not under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Learned Division Bench while admitting this writ petition on 18.7.1997 directed the matter to be placed before the Full Bench by passing the following order:- CWP No. 15855 of 1995 [2] “Are the Municipal Employees in the State of Haryana governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or by the provisions of the Civil Services Rules in view of the Haryana Municipal Employees (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982?. There appears to be a conflict of decisions. In Kundan Lal Narang V. State of Haryana through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Local Self Department, Chandigarh and another 1987(2) P.L.R. 431, it has been ruled that the provisions of 1972 Act apply. In a later Division Bench decision in Municipal Committee District Hisar V. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1994(4) R.S.J. 275, it has been ruled that the provisions of 1982 Rules apply. In view of the apparent conflict of decisions, this writ petition is admitted to a Full Bench. The matter may be heard as early as possible.” 3. At the out set, learned counsel for the parties very fairly conceded that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Dharam Parkash Sharma and another (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 221, and as such the issue referred to the Full Bench as well as the writ petition has become infructuous and be disposed of accordingly. 4. In view of the statements of the learned counsel, the reference made to the Full Bench as well as the writ petition are disposed of as having become infructuous. The petitioners are, however, given liberty to challenge the subsequent notification issued by the State of Haryana by way of separate writ petition, if so desired. No costs. (MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE 22.04.2010 'ravinder'