IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9895 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 30, 2009 District Rural Development Agency, Sonepat .....PETITIONER Versus The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The District Rural Development Agency, Sonepat has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P4) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by respondent No.3 has been allowed; and the order dated 1.1.2008 (Annexure P5) passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, has been dismissed. In the impugned order, it has been held that respondent No.3 falls under the definition of `employee' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Regarding the contention that the petitioner agency is not an establishment, while following the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No.2884 of 2006, titled as “The District Rural Development C.W.P. No.9895 of 2008 -2- Department and others vs. Kartar Singh”, it has been held that the petitioner agency is an establishment within the meaning of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. After coming to the said conclusion, the respondent-authority has been directed to pay gratuity to respondent No.3 with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner could neither controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position nor cite any contrary judgment. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. April 30, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE