1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4697 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.8.2010 Bhagat Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. Temple Trust Shree Naina Devi Ji …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondent : Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The application was filed before the erstwhile Tribunal with the following prayers:- i) That the respondent Trust may be directed to release the gratuity and other retiral benefits including pension to the applicant with interest @ 18%. ii) That the respondent Trust may be directed to place on record the copy of service Bye-Laws, 1994 for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. 2. In the reply, at para 6 (B), it is stated as follows:- “In reply to this para it is admitted that the applicant was retired on 30.9.1996 after attaining the age of superannuation. However it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled for any of the retiral benefits as he rendered only 9 months regular service in the Temple Trust. The benefit of pension is not available to the Trust Employees. The applicant is also not entitled for the gratuity as per the Bye-Laws. Rule 9 (i) (A) of Part IV of the Temple Trust Shri Naina Devi Ji Employees Bye-Laws 1994 which deals with the grant of gratuity is reproduced for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. 2 9. Gratuity: (i) An employee who dies while in service or retires on superannuation or is discharged from service or is declared invalid for further service shall be eligible for retirement gratuity at the rate of:- (A) One-half of a months pay for each completed year of service if he had completed not less than five years continuous service at the time of retirement, discharge or invalidment. It is also submitted that the Trust Bye-Laws apply only to the whole time employees of the Trust. As such since the applicant remains as whole time employee of the Trust only for 9 months, he is not entitled for the benefit of gratuity on his retirement.” 3. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled under Rules for pension and under the bye-laws for gratuity. The petition is dismissed. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 16, 2010 (sks/pankaj)