- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, rejecting the petitioner's plea for according to him the benefit of 6 months over and above the actual period of service which period, it is contended, as the period that should be deemed to be an actual period of service. This deemed service was sought on the basis that he was entitled to an earned leave for the said period and for other benefits. He has cited instances of two other cases who had been given such a benefit.
(2.) There can be no equality on an issue which is not protected by law. While the entitlement as an earned leave, encashment of leave salary and house rent allowance would be perfectly justified for a period of 6 months, if so provide, there is no scope for deeming that 6 month's period as service period, if the rules themselves do not provide for such a deemed service. The petitioner cannot have a computation in the manner sought for.
(3.) I find no error in the respective orders of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;