Krishan Lal Arora v. Delhi Jal Board

10. Urmila Devi w/o 1420/2013 07.08.1964 31.08.2002 late Sh. Sis Ram L__________ ·-·- The petitioners were governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. At the time of their superannuation, they were granted gratuity and pension in terms of the said rules. The p~titioners claimed that they were entitled to receive gratuity in terms of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) and for claiming differential amount between the gratuity - to which they claim that they were entitled under the said Act, and the gratuity that they had already received, each of them approached the Controlling Authority. In respect of each of the petitioners, the Controlling Authority held that they were not entitled to the said differep.ce, as they had already been paid gratuity under the CCS (Pension) Rules. ·The Appellate Authority, as aforesaid, has dismissed the appeals preferred by each ofthese petitioners and, consequently, these petitions have been prefened. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment rendered by this Court in WPC No.7185/2012 in Bishamber Nath Sehgal v. Delhi.lal Board decided on 14.12.2012. The learned Single Judge has allowed an identical petition - as the present petitions by placing reliance on the earlier decision ofthe Division Bench of this Court in a batch of appeals including LPA No.780/2008 in Delhi Jal Board v. Gulshan Kumar Oberoi decided on 13.01.2009. ! Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the DJB in the case of Gulshan Kumar Oberoi and several other cases vide order dated 13.02.2013. A copy ofthe said order has also been placed before this Court. A perusal of the judgment in Bishamber Nath Sehgal (supra) makes it amply clear that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief, since the dates of their retirement precedes 12.06.2003, i.e. the date on which the notification had been issued granting exemption to Delhi Jal Board from the provisions of the_ Act. Merely because the petitioners were governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, it could not be said that they would not be governed by the provisions of the Act. The Court has already held that the employees of the Delhi Jal Board are not State Government employees. Consequently. the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the petitioners, and they are entitled to receive gratuity in terms ofthe said Act. Learned counsel for the respondent cannot dispute the aforesaid position. However, he points out that the present petitions have been filed highly belatedly. The impugned appellate orders in each ofthese cases were passed in the year 2007. The present petitions have been prcfcn·ed after nearly six years of the passing of the impugned orders, and there is no explanation for the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that there is no explanation furnished by the petitioners in each of these cases. He, however, submits that since the Supreme Comi was ceased ofthe matter and had granted stay ofthe judgment ofthe Division Bench in the batch of LPAs (including in the case of Gulshan Kumar Oberoi), the petitioners did not prefer their writ petitions earlier. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am ofthe view that the petitioners cannot be denied the relief prayed for in the present petitions. The amount of gratuity to which the petitioners were entitled had to be determined under the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the amount that they received towards gratuity was less, and consequently they are entitled to receive the balance amount. The gratuity paid under the said Act is for service already rendered and the same cannot be denied to the petitioners only on account of the delay on their part in approaching the Court. At the same time, the petitioners cannot seek to make profit out of their own delay and default in approaching the Court. The justification offered by learned counsel is not good enough. A party cannot watch and wait for the outcome of the appeals pending before the Supreme Court. It should invoke its rights without any •,.:'.;delay. The impugned orders by the appellate authority in each ofthese cases.. ·were passed in the year 2007. These petitions have been filed only now in ·2013. A situation should not arise that the petitioners now claim compound interest in terms of section 8 of the said Act for the delay which has been occasioned by them. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority and by the Controlling Authority in each ofthese cases are set aside, and the respondent Delhi Jal Board is directed to pay to each of the petitioners the difference in gratuity admissible to them. The said amount be released within four weeks. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim interest for the time taken by them to approach this Court after the passing of the appellate orders in each ofthese cases. /I Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid tenns leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Dasti.. APRIL 02, 2013 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J