Supreme Court of India
SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICESversusGURSEWAK SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 387
- Decided
- 15 March 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- UDAY UMESH LALIT
Holding
A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an ‘employee’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and, because the 2011 Rules expressly bar gratuity on voluntary resignation, he is not entitled to gratuity.
Issues considered
- Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an ‘employee’ as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and thus entitled to gratuity under that Act.
- Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is eligible for gratuity under the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 when he resigns voluntarily.
Legislation cited
- Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011s. 3-A(i), s. 6(1), s. 6(13)
- Indian Post Office Act, 1898s. 2(k)
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972s. 1(3), s. 14, s. 2(e), s. 4(1)
Subjects
Payment of Gratuity Actemployee definitionextra‑departmental agentgratuity entitlementvoluntary resignationstatutory interpretationestablishmentservice rules vs. statute
Judgment
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1025 1025
SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES A
v.
GURSEWAK SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3150 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:
ss. 4(1) and 2(e) – Gramin Dak Sewak – Payment of gratuity
under the 1972 Act – Entitlement of – Held: Gramin Dak Sewak-
C
respondent No. 1 not entitled to payment of gratuity – s. 2(e) defining
term ‘employee’ specifically excludes persons who are governed by
any Act, or Rules providing for payment of Gratuity – Gramin Dak
Sewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental Agents, a post governed
by the Gramin Dak Sewak Rules, 2011, having a separate provision
for payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents – Thus, D
Gramin Dak Sewak is not an “employee” under the 1972 Act – In
terms of r. 6(13) no Gratuity is payable if an Extra-Departmental
Agent quits the agency on his own – On facts, respondent No. 1
tendered his resignation and order accepting his resignation was
passed u/r. 6(13) permitting respondent no. 1 to quit the services of
E
the Gramin Dak Sewak as per his voluntary resignation – Thus,
respondent no. 1 became disentitled from the payment of gratuity
under the 2011 Rules applicable to Gramin Dak Sewaks – Gramin
Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 – rr. 6(1), 6(13),
3-A (i).
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 Act applies to every ‘establishment’ within the meaning of
“any law” for the time being in force. The Post Office Act, 1898
would fall under the expression ‘law’ in Section 1(3)(b). Thus,
the Post & Telegraphs Department would be an ‘establishment’ G
under the 1972 Act. [Para 9.1][1043-D, G]
1.2 Section 4(1) of the 1972 Act, provides for payment of
Gratuity to an employee on the termination of his employment,
subject to the condition that he must have rendered a minimum
H
1025
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A of 5 years’ continuous service. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act,
however specifically excludes persons who are governed by any
Act, or Rules providing for payment of Gratuity. Section 4 of the
1972 Act, states that “Gratuity shall be payable to an employee”.
The term ‘employee’ is defined by Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act.
Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes persons who hold a post
B
with the Central or State Government and are governed by any
other Act or rules providing for payment of gratuity. Gramin Dak
Sewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental Agents, a post
governed by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules, 2011. These Rules have a separate provision
C for payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents. A
Gramin Dak Sewak is not an “employee” under the 1972 Act.
[Para 9.2-9.4][1035-H; 1037-D-F]
1.3 The 2011 Rules provide that Gramin Dak Sewaks are
Extra-Departmental Agents, who are outside the Civil Service of
D the Union, and shall not claim to be at par with the Central
Government Employees. The Extra-Departmental Agents are
engaged by the Department of Posts & Telegraphs to cater to
the postal requirements in the rural and remote areas. The system
avails the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords, and
such other persons in a village who have a reasonable standard
E of literacy, and adequate means of livelihood, and can therefore
assist the Department on a part-time basis by way of gainful
avocation, to provide service to the rural communities for their
postal requirements. Rule 3-A(i) of the 2011 Rules provides that
the Gramin Dak Sewaks shall not be required to perform duties
F beyond a maximum period of 5 hours a day. This shows the
avocational nature of the service. Rule 6(1) of the 2011 Rules
provides for payment of gratuity to Gramin Dak Sewaks. However,
Rule 6(13) states that no Gratuity is payable if an
Extra-Departmental Agent quits the agency on his own.
[Para 10.1][1037-H; 1038-A-D]
G
1.4 In the instant case, respondent No. 1 tendered his
resignation in 2014. The appellant-Department accepted his
resignation. The order accepting the resignation of respondent
No. 1 was passed under Rule 6(13) permitting respondent No. 1
to quit the services of the Gramin Dak Sewak as per his voluntary
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1027
resignation. As a consequence of his resignation, respondent A
No. 1 became disentitled from the payment of Gratuity under the
statutory 2011 Rules applicable to Gramin Dak Sewaks.
[Para 10.2][1038-E; 1039-A-B]
1.5 The impugned Orders passed by the High Court are
set-aside. [Para 11][1039-B] B
Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Jalandhar
Division, Jalandhar v. Darshan Ram (through LRs) &
Ors. 2014 (9) SCT 120 (DB) ; Senior Superintendent
of Post Officers v. Smt. Sham Duiari & Ors. 2006 (3)
SCT 577 ; State of Punjab v. Labour Court Jalandhar C
(1980) 1 SCC 4 : [1980] 1 SCR 953 ; Superintendent
of Post Officers v. PK Rajamma (1997) 3 SCC 94 ;
Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad (1997) 11 SCC
650 - referred to.
Case Law Reference D
2014 (9) SCT 120 (DB) referred to Para 4.6
2006 (3) SCT 577 referred to Para 4.6
[1980] 1 SCR 953 referred to Para 8.1
(1997) 3 SCC 94 referred to Para 9.4 E
(1997) 11 SCC 650 referred to Para 9.4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3150
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 of the High Court F
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1612 of 2017.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2019
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG., R. Balasubramanian, V. V. V.
Pattabhiram, P. V. Yogeswaran, Nachiketa Joshi, Vaibhav Chadha, G
Risabh Jain, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the Appellant.
Bharat Sangal (A.C.), Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Ms. Isha Gupta,
Ms. Anindita Deka, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
2. A common question of law arises in both the appeals which
B are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts in Sr.
Superintendent of Post Offices v. Gursewak Singh & Ors. are being
considered as the lead case.
3. The present Civil Appeal has been filed against the Order
dated 01.12.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
C High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1612 of 2017.
4. The factual matrix of the case, briefly stated, is as under:
4.1. On 26.06.1991, Respondent No. 1 was engaged as a
Gramin Dak Sewak i.e. an Extra-Departmental Agent,
to work on a part-time basis in the Postal Department at
D Faridkot, Punjab.
4.2. In 2014, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily resigned from
the said part-time job. On 28.08.2014, the Department
accepted the resignation, and Respondent No. 1 was
discharged with immediate effect.
E 4.3. Respondent No. 1 approached the Controlling Authority-
cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central Jalandhar,
seeking gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(herein after referred to as “the 1972 Act”).
4.4.The Appellant – Department took the stand that
F Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to ex-gratia gratuity
under the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement)
Rules, 2011 as he had voluntarily resigned from the job.
The Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Central Jalandhar, vide Order
G dated 21.09.2015, allowed the claim of Respondent
No. 1 and directed the Department to pay an amount of
Rs. 1,06,021/- along with Interest @ 10% p.a. from
28.08.2014.
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1029
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
4.5. The Department filed an Appeal u/S. 7(7) of the 1972 A
Act, against the Order dated 21.09.2015 before the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kendriya
Sadan, Chandigarh.
The Appellate Authority vide Order dated 17.05.2016
dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant – B
Department, and upheld the Order dated 21.09.2015
passed by the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Central Jalandhar.
4.6. The Department filed C.W.P. No. 11412 of 2017 before
the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution against the Order C
dated 17.05.2016.
The learned Single Judge vide Oder dated 23.05.2017
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Department relying
upon earlier judgments passed by the same High Court
in Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Jalandhar D
Division, Jalandhar v. Darshan Ram (through LRs)
& Ors.1 and Senior Superintendent of Post Officers
v. Smt. Sham Duiari & Ors.2
4.7. The Department challenged the Order dated 23.05.2017
passed by the Single Judge by way of LPA No. 1612 E
of 2017 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh.
The division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court at Chandigarh on 01.12.2017, dismissed the LPA
filed by the Department on the ground that SLPs filed F
against the earlier judgments had been dismissed by this
Court. As a consequence, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge did not warrant interference.
4.8. The Department has filed the present Appeal to challenge
the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 passed by a G
division bench of the High Court.
5. We have heard the learned ASG Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee for
the Appellant – Department. Mr. Bharat Sangal, Advocate
was appointed as Amicus Curiae vide Order dt. 10.12.2018 to represent
1
2014 (9) SCT 120 (DB) H
2
2006 (3) SCT 577
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A the interest of the Respondents who did not appear, despite service being
effected on them.
We have perused the pleadings and written submissions
filed by both parties.
6. The issues which arise for consideration are as follows:
B
6.1. Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an ‘employee’ as per
Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, and is entitled to payment
of Gratuity under this Act?
6.2. Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is eligible for payment
C of Gratuity under the 2011 Rules upon voluntary
resignation?
7. The learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Department
submitted that :
7.1. The Gramin Dak Sewaks constitute a unique
D department of posts. The persons working as Gramin
Dak Sewaks are not regular departmental employees
but “extra-departmental agents”, who work on a part
time basis for a few hours every day; and, have an
independent source of livelihood. They are permitted to
work upto the age of 65 years.
E
7.2. The Gramin Dak Sewaks are governed by the 2011
Rules, which form a complete and separate code
providing for the recruitment, gratuity, conduct, and
disciplinary proceedings of Gramin Dak Sewaks.
F The terms and conditions of their engagement are
governed by Rule 3-A of the 2011 Rules, which reads as
under :
“3-A Terms and Conditions of Engagement
(i) A Sevak shall not be required to perform
G duty beyond a maximum Period of 5 hours
in a day;
(ii) A Sevak shall not be retained beyond 65
years of age;
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1031
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
(iii) A Sevak shall have to give an undertaking A
that he has other sources of income besides
the allowances paid or to be paid by the
Government for adequate means of
livelihood for himself and his family;
(iv) A Sevak can be transferred from one post B
unit to another post/unit in public interest;
(v) A Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of
the Union;
(vi) A Sevak shall not claim to be at par with the
Central Government employees; C
(vii) Residence in post village/delivery
jurisdiction of the Post Office within one
month after selection but before engagement
shall be mandatory for a Sevak:;
D
Failure to reside in place of duty for GDS
BPM & within delivery jurisdiction of the
Post Office for other categories of Gramin
Dak Sevaks after engagement shall be
treated as violative of conditions of
engagement and liable for disciplinary E
action under Rule 10 of the Conduct rules,
requiring removal/dismissal;
(viii) Post Office shall be located in the
accommodation to be provided by Gramin
Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster suitable for F
use as Post Office premises;
(ix) Combination of duties of a Sevak shall be
permissible;”
(emphasis supplied)
G
A reading of Rule 3-A(iii) of the 2011 Rules, makes it
abundantly clear that a Gramin Dak Sewaks must have an
independent means of livelihood. The Gramin Dak Sewaks
are engaged on a part-time basis for a maximum of 3 to 5
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A hours a day. Rule 3-A(v) and (vi) stipulate that a Gramin
Dak Sewak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union,
and shall not claim to be at par with the servants of the
Government.
7.3. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant –
B Department that the part-time employment of Gramin Dak
Sewaks is governed by a separate scheme, since they do not
form part of the regular cadre, and cannot be treated to be in
the main service or class of service. Gratuity is payable to
them in accordance with the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct
& Engagement) Rules, 2011.
C
Rule 6(1) of the 2011 Rules provides for payment of ex
gratia gratuity to Gramin Dak Sewaks. Rule 6(13) of the
2011 Rules provides that no gratuity is payable to a Gramin
Dak Sewak, if he resigns from the agency on his own, except
on medical grounds.
D
Rule 6(1) and (13) of the 2011 Rules read as under :
“(1) Payment of ex-gratia gratuity. – The question of
grant of some kind of purely ex gratia monetary grant
to ED Agents working in the Indian Posts and
Telegraphs Department on termination of their services
E has been under consideration for a long time. It has
been decided as follows :-
1. ED Agents as defined in P & T Extra Departmental
Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, whose
services are terminated otherwise than (i) for
F unsatisfactory word or (ii) as a measure of
disciplinary action or (iii) in consequence of their
being appointed in a regular post under the P & T
Department, may be sanctioned monetary grants
termed as ‘Gratuity’, provided that they have put in
not less than ten years of continuous satisfactory
G
service as Ed Agents.”
“(13) No gratuity to ED Agent who quits the agency on
his own. – The question of extending the benefit of grant
of ex gratia gratuity to ED Agents who have to resign
on account of circumstances beyond their control was
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1033
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
taken up with the Ministry of finance. It has been A
decided that no ex gratia gratuity will be paid to ED
Agents in such cases. It is, therefore, clarified that
according to the present orders, gratuity is payable only
if the services of an ED Agent are terminated in
consequence of an action of the department, subject to
B
their fulfillment of the other prescribed conditions and
that no gratuity is payable if an ED Agent quits the
agency on his own. The services of an ED Agent should
not be terminated when he himself quits the job. In such
cases, an order permitting the ED Agent to quit the
services on his own should be issued so that the order C
may not be construed as an order of termination of
service. “
(emphasis supplied)
8. Mr. Bharat Sangal, learned Amicus Curiae, represented
the interest of the Respondents before this Court. The learned Counsel D
inter alia submitted that :
8.1. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to every place
defined as an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of any
law for the time being in force in a state.
To determine the applicability of the Payment of E
Gratuity Act, 1972 it must be seen whether the place is
defined as an establishment under the law applicable to
the State. Reliance was placed on the judgment of State
of Punjab v. Labour Court Jalandhar3 wherein this
Court held that an establishment falling within the F
definition of Section 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936 would be covered by the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972.
It was contended that the Postal Department is an
establishment within the meaning of the term used in
G
Section 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and
the 1972 Act, would be applicable to its employees.
8.2. Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act, provides for payment of
gratuity to employees of every factory, mine, oilfield,
3
(1980) 1 SCC 4 H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A plantation, port, railway company, shop or establishment.
Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act reads as under :
“1.Short title, extent, application and
commencement.-
(3) It shall apply to-
B
(a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port
and railway company;
(b) every shop or establishment within the
meaning of any law for the time being in force in
C relation to shops and establishments in a State, in
which ten or more persons are employed, or were
employed, on any day of the preceding twelve
months;
(c) such other establishments or class of
D establishments, in which ten or more employees
are employed, or were employed, on any day of
the preceding twelve months, as the Central
Government may, by notification, specify in this
behalf.”
(emphasis supplied)
E
8.3. It was further submitted that Section 14 of the 1972
Act, specifically provides that the Act would apply
“notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other enactment”.
Section 14 of the 1972 Act reads as under :
F
“14. Act to override other enactments, etc.—
The provisions of this Act or any rule made
thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
enactment other than this Act or in any instrument
G or contract having effect by virtue of any
enactment other than this Act.”
8.4. Section 4(1)(b) of the 1972 Act provides that gratuity
would be payable to an employee even on his resignation.
Thus, any rule barring payment of gratuity to an employee
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1035
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
who resigns, would be contrary to Section 14 read with A
Section 4(1)(b) of the 1972 Act.
8.5. It was further submitted that the Department of Posts,
Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment) Rules,
2001 were superseded and replaced by the Department
of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and
B
Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Under the amended 2011 Rules the term “employment
appointment” has been replaced by “engagement”. The
amended Rule 6 pertains to payment of ex gratia Gratuity
to Gramin Dak Sewaks.
C
9. The first issue to be determined is whether a Gramin Dak
Sewak is an ‘employee’ as per Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, and is
entitled to payment of Gratuity under this Act?
9.1. Section 1(3)(b) of the 1972 Act applies to every
‘establishment’ within the meaning of “any law” for the
time being in force. D
This Court in State of Punjab v. Labour Court
Jalandhar4 has held that there is no reason for limiting
the meaning of the expression ‘law’ in Section 1(3)(b) of
the 1972 Act.
The Postal Department is as an establishment under E
Section 2(k) of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which
reads as under :
“2. Definitions.-
(k) the expression “Post Office” means the
department, established for the purposes of F
carrying the provisions of this Act into effect and
presided over by the Director General.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Indian Post Office Act, 1898 would fall under
G
the expression ‘law’ in Section 1(3)(b). Consequently,
the Post & Telegraphs Department would be an
establishment under the 1972Act.
9.2. Section 4(1) of the 1972 Act, provides for payment of
Gratuity to an employee on the termination of his
4
(1980) 1 SCC 4 H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A employment, subject to the condition that he must have
rendered a minimum of 5 years’ continuous service.
Section 4(1) of the 1972 Act reads as under :
“4. Payment of Gratuity.-
B (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on
the termination of his employment after he has
rendered continuous service for not less than five
years,-
(a) on his superannuation, or
C (b) on his retirement or resignation,
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident
or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service
of five years shall not be necessary where the
D
termination of the employment of any employee
is due to
death or disablement:
Provided further that in case of death of the
E employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid
to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made,
to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs
is minor, the share of such minor, shall be
deposited with the Controlling Authority who shall
invest the same for the benefit of such minor in
F such bank or other financial institution, as may
be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,
disablement means such disablement as
incapacitates an employee for the work which he
G was capable of performing before the accident
or disease resulting in such disablement.”
(emphasis supplied)
9.3. Section 4 of the 1972 Act, states that “Gratuity shall
be payable to an employee”.
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1037
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
The term ‘employee’ is defined by Section 2(e) of A
the 1972 Act, as under :
“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,-
(e) “employee” means any person (other than an
apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether B
the terms of such employment are express or
implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise,
in or in connection with the work of a factory,
mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company,
shop or other establishment to which this Act C
applies, but does not include any such person
who holds a post under the Central Government
or a State Government and is governed by any
other Act or by any rules providing for payment
of gratuity;”
D
(emphasis supplied)
Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, however specifically
excludes persons who are governed by any Act, or Rules providing for
payment of Gratuity.
9.4. Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes persons who E
hold a post with the Central or State Government and
are governed by any other Act or rules providing for
payment of gratuity.
Gramin Dak Sewaks are engaged as Extra
Departmental Agents, a post governed by the 2011
Rules. 5 These Rules have a separate provision for F
payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents.
A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an “employee” under
the 1972 Act. The first issue is answered accordingly.
10. The second issue is whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is eligible
for payment of Gratuity upon voluntary resignation under the 2011 Rules? G
10.1.The 2011 Rules provide that Gramin Dak Sewaks are
Extra-Departmental Agents, who are outside the Civil
Service of the Union, and shall not claim to be at par
5
Superintendent of Post Officers v. PK Rajamma; (1997) 3 SCC 94
See also Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad; (1997) 11 SCC 650 H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
A with the Central Government Employees. The Extra
Departmental Agents are engaged by the Department
of Posts & Telegraphs to cater to the postal requirements
in the rural and remote areas. The system avails the
services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords, and
such other persons in a village who have a reasonable
B
standard of literacy, and adequate means of livelihood,
and can therefore assist the Department on a part-time
basis by way of gainful avocation, to provide service to
the rural communities for their postal requirements.
Rule 3-A(i) of the 2011 Rules provides that the
C Gramin Dak Sewaks shall not be required to perform
duties beyond a maximum period of 5 hours a day. This
shows the avocational nature of the service.
Rule 6(1) of the 2011 Rules provides for payment
of gratuity to Gramin Dak Sewaks. However, Rule
D 6(13) states that no Gratuity is payable if an Extra
Departmental Agent quits the agency on his own.
10.2.In the present case, Respondent No. 1 tendered his
resignation in 2014. The Appellant – Department
accepted his resignation vide letter dated 28.08.2014.
The Order dated 28.08.2014 accepting the resignation
E of Respondent No. 1 reads as under :
“ The unconditional resignation dated nil
submitted by Sh. Gursewak Singh from the post
of GDSBPM Assa Butter in a/c with Bariwala SO
is hereby accepted with immediate effect.
F
Usual charge Reports should be sent to all
concerned.
Sd/-
THE SUPDT OF POST OFFICES
FARIDKOT DIVISION
G
FARIDKOT – 151203 “
(emphasis supplied)
The Order was passed under Rule 6(13) permitting
Respondent No. 1 to quit the services of the Gramin Dak
Sewak as per his voluntary resignation.
H
SR. SUPTD. OF POST OFFICES v. GURSEWAK SINGH 1039
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
As a consequence of his resignation, Respondent No. 1 A
became disentitled from the payment of Gratuity under the
statutory 2011 Rules applicable to Gramin Dak Sewaks. The
second issue is answered accordingly.
11. The Impugned Orders passed by the High Court in both the
Appeals are hereby set-aside. B
We acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the
learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Bharat Sangal in representing the interest
of the Respondents.
Pending applications in both the Appeals, if any, are dismissed.
C
The Appeals are allowed accordingly.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Payment of Gratuity Act"Sign in to search