- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff and raises a short question about the interpretation of Regulation 5 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulations hereinafter to be referred as the Gratuity Regulations. The relevant facts which are not in dispute may be outlined as follows.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Raghbir Sahai joined the service of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, hereinafter to be referred as the " Corporation " on 5 May 1955, when he was 52 years of age. On 1 April 1956, he was confirmed on his post with retrospective effect from the date of his original appointment. He attained the age of 55 years on 23 August 1958. He was normally to be retired at that age, but thereafter his further retention in service was ordered by the Corporation. This further extension could be for a fixed period of one year at a time and the services were not to be extended beyond the age of 60 years. After 23 August 1958 the plaintiff got four extensions, but at the time of granting the extension on 25 August 1961 it was mentioned that that would be the last extension-Accordingly, on the expiry of the period of last extension, the plaintiff ceased to be the employee of the Corporation. The plaintiff claimed gratuity from the Corporation in accordance with the Gratuity Regulations, but as the same was not paid to him, he commenced the action against the Corporation in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City. The learned. Civil Judge decreed: his claim to the extent of Rs. 2,925 only. Against this judgment the Corporation went in appeal to the District Judge, Jaipur City. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the relevant rules to which his attention was invited, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any gratuity from the Corporation. Accordingly, he accepted the Corporation's appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge. It is against this appellate judgment of the District Judge that the present second appeal has been lodged by the appellant.
(3.) THE fate of the case depends on a consideration of the relevant rules and, therefore, I propose to read them in the first instance.;