- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. All the aforesaid revision petitions have been filed against the common order dated 16th August, 2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Chomu, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the executing court') in the execution petitions filed by the non-petitioners under Sections 38, 41 and 47 and Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. Arising out of the common judgment dated 7th April, 2008 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Tribunal, Jaipur (hereafter referred to as 'the Education Tribunal') therefore, all the above mentioned revision petitions have been heard together and the same are being decided by this common order.
(2.) As per the facts mentioned in the common judgment of the Tribunal dated 7th April, 2000 and one of the execution petition, during execution of the decree before the executing court after making payment of the undisputed amount, the judgment debtor raised three objections regarding remaining amount. The first objection was regarding calculation of the gratuity amount claimed by the decree holders being monthly rated employees as per explanation to Section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; the second objection raised by the judgment debtor was with regard to applicability of Government of Rajasthan's Circular dated 25.1.1992 for grant of selection scales; and the third objection was with regard to payment of gratuity for the period during which the decree holder remain under reemployment.
(3.) The executing court after hearing both the sides rejected all the aforesaid objections holding that as per the directions of the Tribunal dated 7th April, 2000, the gratuity is to be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and in case of a monthly rated employee, the same is to be calculated by dividing the monthly salary by 26 and then multiplying one day salary by 15 days. The second objection was rejected on the ground that the judgment of the Education Tribunal in this case for grant of selection scales as per the Circular dated 25.1.1992 has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the third objection was rejected on the ground that extension of service cannot be treated as part time service but the said is re-employment and has to be treated as part of the employment, therefore, the same period has to be counted for payment of gratuity.;