- (1.) The petitioner seeks for a prayer for payment of gratuity which is denied to him on the ground that at the time when he retired, there was no scheme of gratuity in force for employees in Municipal Committee. The counsel relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kundal Lal Versus State of Haryana in CWP No.427 of 1987 that was disposed of on 25.08.1987. The case is identical to what was considered in the above mentioned case, where the Bench of this Court dealing with the expression "establishment" as including the administration of Municipal Committee as well and ruling that all municipal employees in Haryana retired after the enforcement of the Act were entitled to payment of gratuity and directed the Municipal Committee to pay to the petitioner the gratuity within 3 months with interest at 12%.
(2.) The learned counsel for the State contends that the Civil Appeal had been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench, but is unable to say whether the case was disposed of or not. At the previous hearing on 02.08.2007, this Court has observed that the Civil Appeal No.1180 of 1988 has actually been disposed of on 20.11.1996. The information available in the official website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in states that the case titled 'State of Haryana and another Versus Kundal Lal Narang' in CWP No.1180 of 1988 has been disposed of on 20.11.1996. I do not, however, find it possible to elicit the details of the same. With no better particulars, I would uphold the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench and direct the respondents to hold that the petitioner is entitled to payment of gratuity and the amount payable towards the employees contribution will be calculated and the same be deducted out of the sum payable and the balance will be paid to the petitioner within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(3.) The writ petition is allowed subject to the above directions.;