G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE present order shall dispose of 23 writ petitions, details of which are given in Annexure 'A', since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the writ petitions. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 3775 of 2011 titled Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Labhu Ram and others.
(2.) IN pursuance of the direction issued in CWP No. 13846 of 2011, office has listed these cases. On 03.03.2011, notice of motion in the main case was issued by this Court, after taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that similar controversy was pending in LPA No. 406 of 2009 and the interim order continued in terms of the said appeal. Thereafter, on 21.08.2012, the writ petition was admitted to be heard with the said LPA. The dispute pertains to the orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which have been upheld by the Appellate Authority and the employees in question are Extra Departmental Agents of the postal authorities.
(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Smt. Sham Dulari and others, : 2006 (3) SCT 577 also upheld the applicability of the Act to the Extra Departmental Agents (EDAs). The matter again came up for consideration in LPA No. 406 of 2009 titled Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vs. Darshan Ram through L.Rs. and others decided on 28.02.2014. The Division Bench has upheld the order passed by the Single Judge whereby, the writ petition of the department was dismissed against the orders of the authorities under the Act. The observations of the Division Bench read thus: - 22. Viewed from another angle, as per scheme of the Gratuity Act, this statute is not applicable to cases where any other rule or statute is more beneficial than the Gratuity Act. By now, it is evident that the rules applicable to the private respondents were not more beneficial than the Gratuity Act, as even after payment of ex -gratia gratuity to them huge amount is payable to them under the Gratuity Act. In E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. G. Omkar Murthy : 2001 (4) SCC 68 (Supreme Court), it was further held that more beneficial enactment is to be made applicable inter alia in matters of payment of gratuity. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma : 1998 (7) SCC 221 (Supreme Court), it was further held that employees of the Municipal Corporation are entitled to payment of gratuity notwithstanding provision of payment of retrial benefits to them under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 wherein there was provision for payment of pension as well as gratuity to the employees of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. 23. From the totality of facts and circumstances, nothing militating against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge as also orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority could be mustered by the appellant. The five appeals being without any merit are, consequently, dismissed.;