The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to local body employees, overriding inconsistent state provisions, and gratuity is a statutory right, not a charity.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Srivastava and Mr. Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent- employee in respective cases in which they have filed Vakalatnama and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Similar controversy are involved in all the aforementioned writ petitions, as such, all the aforementioned writ petitions are being clubbed, heard and disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in Writ C No. 18428 of 2024 shall be treating as a leading petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that State of U.P. by means of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 hereinafter shall be referred to as Act of 1959 promulgated Rules and Regulations with regard to establishment of Nagar Mahapalika/Nagar Nigam in State of U.P. In pursuance of the aforementioned Act of 1959, Nagar Nigam Meerut has been established in District Meerut in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 548 of the Act of 1959 Meerut Nagar Nigam Karamchari Nivritt Suvidha (Retirement Benefits) Regulations 1988 hereinafter shall be referred as Regulation of 1988 has been framed. The aforementioned Regulation of 1988 was published in the Official Gazette of U.P. Government on 22.7.1988 and was made effective from 15.6.1982. Respondent no.2 was appointed as Safai Nayak/Peon in the petitioner's organization on 18.5.1978 and retired on 30.6.2019. Respondent no.4 filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 hereinafter shall be referred as Act of 1972 on 2.11.2020 before respondent no.3/Controlling Authority for payment of his gratuity which was registered as P.G.A. case No. 32 of 2021. Petitioner/Nagar Nigam filed his written statement denying the allegations made by respondent no.4 stating that provisions of the Act of 1972 are not applicable upon the non-centralized employees of the petitioner's organization as well as entire claim of respondent no.4 that is retiral benefits as well as gratuity has already been paid to him as per Regulation of 1988. Respondent no.4 filed his rejoinder affidavit to the written statement reiterating the averment made by him. Parties adduced evidence in support of their cases before respondent no.3/Controlling Authority. Respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022 allowed the application filed by respondent no.4 and directed the petitioner/Nagar Nigam to pay the amount of gratuity @ of Rs. 3,05,269/- along with 8% simple interest from 30.6.2019 till the date of payment. In pursuance of the order dated 28.10.2022, recovery certificate has been issued on 18.10.2023 against the petitioner. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in PGA case No. 32/2021 (Rizvan Ahamad Vs. M/S Nagar Nigam) as well as the impugned recovery certificate dated 18.10.2023 issued by respondent no.2 with all of its consequential effects whatsoever throughout.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent to not to recover any amount in pursuance to the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by respondent no.3 in PGA Case No. 32/2021 (Rizvan Ahamad Vs. M/S Nagar Nigam)."

4. This Court on 9.7.2024 passed the following interim order:-

"1.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar controversy has already been entertained by this Court in Writ-C Nos.19401 of 2023, 19326 of 2023, 19531 of 2023, 32324 of 2023, 19326 of 2023, 19431 of 2023, 19526 of 2023, 19527 of 2023, 19529 of 2023, 19532 of 2023 and interim orders have been granted, therefore the instant writ petition be connected with the aforesaid writ petitions.

2. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent submitted that there is alternative remedy against impugned order.

3. Put up this matter as fresh on