DR. CHIRANJI LALSANGHI Vs. RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner was justified in calculating the paying the amount of gratuity to the petitioner only on the basis of his basic pay by excluding the Dearness Allowance and other admissible allowances which the petitioner was drawing while he was in service. From the records of this case, it transpires that this question came up for consideration before the Principal Seat of this High Court at Jodhpur whereby a learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench held that in addition to Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance and Ad hoc Dearness Allowance last drawn by the employee also shall have to be added while calculating the amount of gratuity payable to the retired employee of the Rajasthan Agriculture University. It further appears that the Rajasthan Agriculture University had challenged this order before the Supreme Court and the learned Judges therein by a well-considered judgment and order dated 4.5.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2162/96 delivered in the case of Rajasthan Agriculture University v. Ram Krishna Vyas, reported in 1999 AIR SCW 1612 upheld the view of the High Court to the effect that Dearness Allowance will have to be added to the basic pay and other allowance of the employee while computing the amount of gratuity payable to the employee. In spite of this direction, the petitioner has been subjected to a differential treatment as his claim for gratuity including the amount of Dearness allowance to his basic pay did not meet with approval before the University authorities as his notice for demand of justice dated 8.1.2002 was neither responded nor the full amount of gratuity was paid to him.

(2.) To specify the aforesaid position, a slight enumeration of the facts of the case of the petitioner are recorded to the following effect:

(3.) The petitioner was serving as a Professor in the Rajasthan Agriculture University which was established in the year 1987 with its headquarter at Bikaner and the petitioner, who was earlier working in the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University of Udaipur, was transferred to the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner. After successful completion of his tenure he retired from the service of the University on 30.4.1992. His retiral benefits were thereafter calculated and was paid to him. The amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 32,250/- was also paid to the petitioner. This amount was paid on the basis of the basic pay drawn by the petitioner which was Rs. 4700/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved of this amount as the amount of gratuity was calculated without including the amount of Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,149/- which the petitioner was admittedly drawing from the respondent-University at the time of his retirement. The petitioner's claim was that the Corrigendum dated 21.3.1987 issued by Mohan Lal Sukhadia Agriculture University, Udaipur should be held to have been adopted by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner and in view of the aforesaid Corrigendum, the gratuity amount should have been calculated by including the Dearness Allowance also. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 53,933/- by way of gratuity and since he has been paid Rs. 35,250/- out of this, he was entitled to a further sum of Rs. 18,683/- along with interest on this amount as the same was wrongly deducted while computing the amount of gratuity. The petitioner further claimed certain amounts by way of interest on his Employees Provident Fund contribution @ Rs. 890/- and he has urged that he is entitled to receive the said amount from the respondents along with interest. He further alleged that when his demand for payment of these amounts was not responded by the respondent-University, he also sent a notice for demand of justice on 28.1.2002 through his counsel but the University authorities failed to re- act even to this, for although they did not reject it, they have also not paid any amount in response to this notice. Hence, he was compelled to move this Court for the required payment as he is a retired person who has attained 69 years of age.