LPA No.1606 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1606 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 21, 2011 Rattan Lal Gupta .......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.JK Goel, Advocate for the appellant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.11295 of 1993. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was initially employed as an Accountant in the Kaithal Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Society Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Society') on 1.7.1961. Thereafter, he joined the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (HAFED) on 4.1.1973. The appellant retired on 31.1.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. Upon retirement, he was released the gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity LPA No.1606 of 2011 2 Act, 1972 (for brevity '1972 Act'). He submitted a representation to respondent No.2 seeking release of the payment towards the gratuity in terms of the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Co-operative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as '1969 Rules'). Such representation was rejected on 24.2.1993 and the appellant was informed that he had already been released the gratuity in terms of the 1972 Act. The appellant impugned such rejection order dated 24.2.1993 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.11295 of 1993 and vide impugned judgment dated 19.1.2010, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the petition. 3. Shri JK Goel, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the service of the appellant had to be counted from the initial date i.e. 1.7.1961 when he was employed with the Society and not from the date he joined service with HAFED. It has also been vehemently argued that at the time of entry into service the appellant was governed by the 1969 Rules and in terms of Rule 3 thereof, the gratuity had to be calculated on the amount of one month's salary for each completed year of service. Accordingly, learned counsel would contend that the payment of gratuity should have been calculated and released in terms of Rule 3 of the 1969 Rules and not by applying the provisions of 1972 Act. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the pleadings on record. 5. Admittedly, the 1969 Rules were repealed by the HAFED Common Cadre Rules 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the '1988 Rules). Rule 16(7) of the 1988 Rules regulates payment of gratuity and reads as under: LPA No.1606 of 2011 3 “All employees shall be allowed the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.” 6. The appellant has been released the gratuity in terms of Rule 16 (7) of the 1988 Rules. Without there being any challenge to the relevant rule of the 1988 Rules, it is not open for the appellant to contend before us that the gratuity payable to him would not be as per the provisions of the 1972 Act. 7. The submission of the appellant regarding counting of his past service with the Society i.e. w.e.f. 1.7.1961 also cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to reflect the terms of his absorption/appointment with HAFED. To substantiate and support the plea being raised by the appellant for purposes of counting his past service towards calculation of gratuity, we would necessarily have to be guided by his terms of appointment/absorption with HAFED. The only relevant document available on record is the appellant's own representation dated 22.12.1992 placed on record as Annexure P2. In such representation, the appellant is referring to his employment with HAFED as in pursuance to an appointment as opposed to absorption. As such, even the plea of counting of his past service prior to his joining HAFED cannot be accepted. 8. Even otherwise, we notice that there is a delay of 168 days in filing the instant appeal and a delay of 262 days in re-filing the appeal. No cogent grounds have been furnished to condone such gross and in-ordinate delay. 9. For the reasons recorded above, we find no basis to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.11295 of 1993. The Letters Patent Appeal LPA No.1606 of 2011 4 is, accordingly, dismissed both, on counts of delay as well as on merits. 10. Appeal dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE November 21, 2011 SRM Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No