Gramin Dak Sevaks are not considered employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and must seek gratuity under the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By this common judgment, total 33 writ petitions would be disposed of, as in all the aforementioned writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved.

For the purpose of determining the entitlement to the gratuity amount, one common question of law is involved i.e.; "Whether the Gram Dak Sevak (GDS) is an employee as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and is entitled to the payment of gratuity under the said Act ?".

Without examining the question, the statutory authorities i.e. the concerned Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity, 'Act of 1972'), have decided the claim for gratuity in favour of the employee(s) i.e. respondent No.1 (workmen in all the aforementioned writ petitions). Thus, in all the writ petitions, filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, the order passed by the respective Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have been challenged before this Court.

For doing the said exercise, the facts and circumstances enumerated in CWP-13542-2019 (O&M), titled as, "The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kapurthala Division, Kapurthala (Punjab) v. Gian Chand and others", are being discussed. The decision passed therein would be applicable in all other writ petitions (detailed herein-above).

2. Present Civil Writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kapurthala Division, Kapurthala (Punjab), for issuance of the writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (for brevity, 'the Act of 1972'), whereby, the application filed by respondent No.1 - workman, for payment of gratuity under the Act of 1972, has been accepted and the petitioner - Department has been directed to pay the amount of gratuity along with interest @ 10% per annum from 17.04.2017.

Besides, petitioner - Department has sought quashing of order dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure P-7), wherein, the appeal preferred by the petitioner - Department, has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

3. Brief factual matrix of the case are that Respondent No. 1 - Gian Chand (employee) filed an application under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1972, for claiming the gratuity amount from the Department (petitioner herein). He pleaded that he was appointed EDDA on 15.09.1979 and was superannuated on 17.04.2017. Thus, after serving the Department for about 37 years 07 months, he claimed the total gratuity amount of Rs. 2, 11, 846/-.

4. In the reply filed by the Department, a preliminary objection was raised that the application is neither maintainable in law nor on fact, because, during the period for which gratuity is claimed, the employee was not serving the Department in a full-time capacity, as he was engaged as Part Time Worker under the designation of Extra Department Agent. This designation was later changed to Gramin Dak Sevak and governed by different set of rules i.e. Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Therefore, the employee was not entitled to claim gratuity under the Act of 1972. The specific plea taken in preliminary objections in paragraphs No.3 & 4 of the reply filed by the Department, is reproduced as under:-

"3. That the application is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. The applicant is not entitled to any amount under the rules of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The period of which the applicant is claiming payment of gratuity is period for his services as GDSBPM. At that time the applicant was engaged as part time worker under the designation of Extra Departmental Agent, the nomenclature which was changed to Gramin Dak Sewak and was governed by different set of rules i.e. Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as such the applicant is not entitled to any payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as such the sa