C.W.P. No.7494 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7494 of 1988 Date of Decision. 07.12.2011 H.D. Chopra, resident of house No.58/49-C, NIT, Faridabad .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Gopi Chand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The short point for consideration in the writ petition is entitlement of a person, who had retired on 30.04.1971 from the Faridabad Complex Administration to the benefits of gratuity admissible to Government employees. 2. The petitioner's contention was that he was originally an employee of the Municipal Committee, later taken over by the Notified Area Committee (NAC) and still later by the Faridabad Complex Administration and in terms of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, he was entitled to be considered as an employee of the Central Government and be granted the benefit of gratuity. Learned counsel refers me to a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.14071 of 1992 as finally determining the issue. The said case related to a declaration that certain persons, who had been employed with Faridabad Complex Administration were entitled to grant of pension as admissible to C.W.P. No.7494 of 1988 -2- the employees of the Haryana Government. The said judgment is with reference to grant of pension and the petitioner cannot take benefit from the said judgment. Learned counsel has also filed along with the writ petition a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No.6998 of 1986 where the prayer had been for grant of gratuity to persons, who had retired from the Faridabad Complex Administration. The said judgment had allowed for payment of gratuity taking note of the fact that the payment of gratuity to municipal employees had been done from the respective dates of retirement namely 16.09.1972 and not merely from the date when the decision by the State Government had been taken on 29.10.1985. 3. The difference which the respondents have attempted to make from the above decision is that every municipal employee in Haryana, who had retired after the enforcement of the Payment of Gratuity Act was entitled to gratuity but since the petitioner had retired even before the coming into force the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner shall not be entitled to such gratuity. All persons, who had retired subsequent to 19.09.1972 i.e. after the Act was passed have been granted the benefit but since the petitioner had retired on 30.04.1971, there is no scope for entertaining his plea. 4. The contention of the State is well founded and I cannot find any justification for accepting the claim for the petitioner, who had retired even before the coming into force of the Act. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Pankaj*