CWP No.7178 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.7178 of 1989 Date of decision January 20 , 2010 Mange Ram son of Shiv Lal, Ex-Sweeper, Municipal Committee, Sonepat now resident of Village Kakroi, Tehsil and District Sonepat. ....... Petitioner Versus Chander son of Nathu, Ex Sweeper, Municipal Committee, Sonepat now readient of Mohalla Kukhar Darwaza, Balmiki Basti, Sonepat. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The claim of the third petitioner alone survives for consideration in this writ petition, the claims of all the other petitioners having been reported to be satisfied already after filing of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner claims arrears of gratuity payable to the estate of the deceased wife of the petitioner. She had put in 23 years of service in the Municipal Committee. In September, 1981, to her claim for gratuity, the response by the Municipal Committee was that the payment of gratuity itself was extended under Section 13 of the Act in relation to Local Bodies only from 23.1.1982 and the wife of the petitioner having died prior to the said date, the petitioner would not be entitled to any gratuity. 3. The effect of the notification of the government and the entitlement of a person to gratuity for cause of action prior to the CWP No.7178 of 1989 2 said notification came for consideration in a decision before this Court in Kundan Lal Vs. Narang Octroi Superintendent, Yamunanagar Vs. State of Haryana 1987 4 SLR 789. In this case, the proceeding of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government by Haryana itself reveals that Haryana Government by its memo No.22/32/85-3CII dated 29.10.1985 and 28.1.1986 made possible the entitlement of gratuity of Municipal employees who had retired on or after 16.9.1972. The denial of gratuity cannot therefore be made even on a bare reading of the communication from the Commissioner and Secretary to Government adverted to by the respondent along with statement and filed Annexure R-1. The decision of this Court referred to above in Kundan Lal Naarnag's case (supra) was subsequently referred to by this Court and extended the benefit of gratuity also to persons who had retired prior to the date of notification in Ram Saran and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2005 (3) SCT 180 and Smt. Rukmani Devi Vs. State of Haryana 2005 (2) PLR 234. 4. The petitioner is entitled to the relief which she has sought and there shall be mandamus directing the second respondent to pay the gratuity to the petitioner as per law to his wife. The same shall be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 20, 2010 archana