SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 584

1999(4) Supreme 407
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Rajasthan Agricultural University -Appellant
versus
Ram Krishna Vyas -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 1996
Decided on 4-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, A.P. Dhamija, Sushil Kr. Jain, A. Misra, Pradeep Aggarwal, Umesh Bohre, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Pallav Shishodia, Advocate for A.P. Medh, Advo­cate.

Important Point
In the matter of computation of Gratuity in respect of employee of Rajasthan Agricultural University, Rajasthan Service Rules are not applicable unless same are specifically adopted by the University and as such dearness allowance and adhoc dearness allowance have to be taken into account while calculating gratuity.

Headnote:University of Udaipur (Sukhadia University) Payment of Gratuity to Employees Rules, 1979 (As applicable to Rajasthan Agricultural Uni­ver­sity)-Rule 11, Note (1)-Rajas­than Service Rules-Rule 7(24)-Retiral benefit-Gratuity-Compu­tation of-University calculated gratuity only on basic pay-Not correct -Rules framed by Government not applicable as same was not specifically adopted by University-Under Rules of University while calculating total emoluments for purpose of gratuity not only basic pay but also dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance have to be taken into consideration. (Paras 7 to 19)

       

Judgment

S.N. Phukan, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dated 12.9.95 passed in Special Appeal No. 572 of 1995. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the special appeal filed by the present appellant namely Rajasthan Agricultural Universi­ty constituted by Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner Act, 1987. Initially by an Act Udaipur University was constituted which was renamed as Mohanlal Sudhadia University. Later Mohanlal Sukhadia University was bifurcated and present appellant university was founded by an Act of Legislature.

2. The respondent herein was an employee of the appellant university and retired from service on superannuation on 9th December, 1992. He was granted provisional pension which was subsequently reduced. Another grievance of the respondent was that the gratuity was calcu­lated only on the basic pay instead of calculating on the pay last drawn including the dearness allowance and adhoc dearness allowance in accordance with the provisions of relevant rules. The respondent, therefore, prayed that an appropriate writ/direction be issued direct­ing the appellant-University to finalise the retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and other retiral dues on the basic of actual last pay drawn, dearness and ad hoc dearness allowances.

3. In the counter filed before the High Court by the present appel­lant-university the actual date of retirement was disputed and accord­ing to the appellant, the respondent herein actually retired on 30th November, 1992. Regarding provisional pension it was urged before the High Court that provisional pension was granted on the basis of under­taking given by the respondent that excess benefits, if any, would be refunded. It was also urged that provisional pension was found to be more than what was due. Regarding rules of the university the plea taken before the High Court was that rules stood amended as per rules of the State Government and as the Government rules define the emoluments as basic pay for the purpose of payment of gratuity, no payment of gratuity on dearness allowance can be allowed. Various other pleas had been taken and it is not necessary to state at this stage and we shall deal with those submissions at the appropriate stage, if necessary.

4. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3242 of 1993 by order dated 9.3.1995 inter alia was of the view that the rules regarding the calculation of basic pay in respect of Government employee would not be applicable in case of employee working under the university and therefore, for the purpose of calculation of gratuity of the respond­ent who was an employee of university, rules of the university shall have to be taken into consideration. It was directed that in terms of the rules of the university while working out gratuity of the respond­ent apart from the basic pay, amount of dearness allowance and adhoc dearness allowance should be counted.

5. Being aggrieved appeal was filed before the Division Bench which was dismissed as stated above.

6. We have heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Addl. Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned counsel for the re­spondent. We may state here that after the argument was over written submissions were filed on behalf of both the parties.

7. To appreciate the contentions raised before us, we may quote below relevant portions of rules etc. The notes 1 and 2 of rule 11 of the University of Udaipur (Sukhadia University) Payment of Gratuity to Employees Rules, 1979 run as follows:-

“1. In the case of an University employee retiring on or after 31.3.1986, the term emolument wherever it occurs under these rules shall mean the emoluments which he was drawing immediately before retirement or on death from the service and include the following for purpose of calculation:-

(a) Pay as defined in Rule 7(24) of RSR,

(b) the a




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top