High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Darshan Ram & Others on 4 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Darshan Ram & Others on 4 March, 2009
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                 Civil Writ Petition No.3450 of 2009
                                       Date of Decision: March 04, 2009


Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkot
                                                         .....PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS


Darshan Ram & Others
                                                     .....RESPONDENT(S)
                            .       .     .


CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -        Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the
                  petitioner.


                             .      .     .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

Challenge in this civil writ petition

is to Order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) and order

dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the

Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Faridkot Division, Faridkot, has come up in writ

petition in challenge to the said orders.

Perusal of Order, Annexure P-7,

indicates that the authority has taken notice of a

Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices vs. Smt. Sham Dulari & Others (CWP No.7576

of 2006, decided on 18.5.2006) whereupon relief has

been granted to the respondents. It has further been
CWP No.3450 of 2009 [2]

contended that the order was challenged before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same however has

been upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

been very fair in appending the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above,

as Annexure P-8, reported as 2006(3) SCT 577.

Considering the fact that learned

counsel for the petitioner has not been able to

distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court, no ground for interference by this Court

is made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

raised an additional issue of delay on the part of

the respondent in approaching the authorities.

The issue has been dealt with in

impugned order, Annexure P-5. It has been recorded

that delay was caused for reasons beyond the control

of the applicant and therefore, is condoned to meet

the ends of social justice. I find no reason to

interfere with the said reasoning.

The petition is dismissed.



                                                          (AJAI LAMBA)
March 04, 2009                                               JUDGE
avin