High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt.Sukhdev Kaur Dhinsa vs The Managing Committee on 22 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Sukhdev Kaur Dhinsa vs The Managing Committee on 22 October, 2008
CWP No.5469 of 2001                                               [1]

THE     HIGH      COURT OF PUNJAB                 AND      HARYANA           AT
                      CHANDIGARH.



                                C. W. P. No.5469 of 2001

                                Date of Decision: 22 - 10 - 2008



Smt.Sukhdev Kaur Dhinsa                                    ....Petitioner

                                v.

The Managing Committee, Nankana Sahib                      ....Respondents
Public School and another


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                                ***
Present:    Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr.Advocate with
            Mr.Swapan Shorey, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with
            Mr.G.S.Sidhu, Advocate
            for the respondents.

                                ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)

Petitioner was appointed as a Principal by the respondent-Trust

on 3.8.1989. She joined her duties on 21.8.1989. As per petitioner’s

averment, she attained age of superannuation on 16.9.1998. Vide Annexure

P-4, she was allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years,

meaning thereby her services were extended for two years. By filing the

present petition, she has claimed gratuity and benefit of earned leave

encashment which is due to her on the eve of retirement.

A stand has been taken by the respondents that since the

petitioner could not be permitted to continue beyond the age of 58 years and
CWP No.5469 of 2001 [2]

her continuation upto age of 60 years was without any justification,

therefore, salary for 1 year 7 months paid to her is to be recovered.

This stand of the respondents cannot be accepted, once the

petitioner has discharged her duties, that also as a result of issuance of

extension granted to her by the Additional Secretary of the Trust vide

Annexure P-4, petitioner had to superannuate on attaining the age of 60

years.

On 17.10.2008, this Court after hearing the parties had ordered

that since retiral benefits are being withheld on a wrong assumption which

cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, this Court intend to impose heavy

costs and pass severe strictures and also called a responsible officer of the

Trust. In compliance of that order dated 17.10.2008, Director of the Trust is

present in Court. He has brought the record. As per record, they have

calculated and computed the gratuity for 10 years and 8 months and 11 days

and a sum of Rs.85,390/- is due to the petitioner as gratuity.

Mr.Pawan Kumar appearing for the petitioner has read Section

4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As per Section 4(2) every

employee is entitled for gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages for every

completed year of service and where he has completed service in excess of

six months, the same is to be taken as one year for computation. In the

present case, admittedly petitioner has completed 10 years 8 months and 11

days of service, therefore, she is entitled to gratuity for 11 years. It is

admitted by the parties that petitioner is entitled to 9% statutory interest on

the amount of gratuity. As per own calculations of the respondents, salary

of the petitioner (Basic pay plus dearness allowance) for each month was

Rs.17,078/-. Therefore, on this basis, the petitioner is to be paid gratuity for
CWP No.5469 of 2001 [3]

11 years along with interest at the rate of 9%. Petitioner completed 60 years

of age on 30.4.2000. Therefore, she will be also entitled to 9% interest on

the delayed payment from the date of retirement. It is stated by counsel for

the respondents that Rs.64,000/- was paid to the petitioner during the

pendency of this writ petition. The amount of Rs.64,000/- be deducted from

total amount of gratuity, rest of the amount of gratuity be paid to the

petitioner as observed above.

As per Rule 9 of the Service & Conduct Rules for the

employees of the respondent-Trust, petitioner is to be treated as non

vacation employee. Rule 9 with regard to Vacation Pay reads as under:-

“The teachers shall be treated as vacation employees.

The Principal, Librarian, clerks, accountant, steno, attendants,

peons shall be treated as non-vacation employees.”

Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of earned leave

encashment at the time of retirement in accordance with rules. The same

shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within three months from today

along with balance amount of gratuity.

Petition stands disposed off.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
October 22, 2008. JUDGE

RC