JAGDISH DASS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite opportunities, reply was not filed. Right to file the reply is closed.

(2.) Petitioner joined as a Clerk in the Food and Supplies Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh on 28.5.1969. He was promoted to the post of Accountant in the year 1986. He was permanently absorbed in the H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation with effect from 19.3.1990 as per the terms and conditions contained in Annexure P-1 dated 19.3.1990. Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 22,050/- by the State Government towards gratuity. He superannuated on 31.5.2008. He served the respondent-corporation for a period of 14 years 3 months and 13 days. He was paid a sum of Rs. 2,78,307/- towards gratuity on 27.9.2010. Condition No.7 of Annexure P-1 reads as under:

(3.) Petitioner was entitled to receive gratuity on the basis of final pay drawn by him by assuming as if he never retired from the Government service. However, the amount of D.C.R.G. received by him from the State Government was to be deducted from the amount. The respondent-corporation has paid D.C.R.G. to R.C. Katoch, K.P. Nayar, M.L. Aggarwal, M.L. Thakur, K.P. Gupta, I.M. Lal, Sarwan Kumar, Tek Ram, Smt. B.K. Punia and Rajinder Paul Sood. The gratuity was sanctioned by the respondent-corporation in favour of M.L. Aggarwal, K.P. Gupta, K.P. Nayar and Rajinder Paul vide Annexures P-3 to P-6. These employees have been paid the gratuity for the total service render by them under the State Government and Corporation, though with a rider that the same should not exceed the amount admissible had they continued in the Government service and retired on the same pay which they drew on retirement from the Corporation. Rajinder Paul Sood was absorbed in the Corporation alongwith petitioner in the month of March, 1990 and he also served the corporation for 14 years 3 months and 13 days, but the gratuity has been paid to him for 33 years, including Government service. However, in the case of petitioner, respondent-corporation has only taken into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 19.3.1990 to 31.5.2008. He was entitled to gratuity by counting entire service rendered by him with the State Government and Corporation at par with the employees whose names have been mentioned hereinabove with effect from 28.5.1969 to the date of retirement from the corporation, i.e. 31.5.2008 on the basis of last pay drawn by him as if he has never retired from the Government service. The amount already received by the petitioner on 23.5.1995 of Rs. 22,050/- was to be deducted. Petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-corporation. Similarly, situate employees have been paid higher gratuity vis- -vis petitioner. Respondent-corporation has not even adhered to condition No.7, as quoted hereinabove, for the purpose of release of gratuity, subject to maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs.