Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Nagar Nigam Meerut – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
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. T
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to local body employees, overriding inconsistent state provisions, and gratuity is a statutory right, not a charity.
The Payment of Gratuity Act allows claims for both statutory and contractual gratuity to be adjudicated under the same authority, ensuring employee rights are protected.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees, including daily wage employees, and entitles them to gratuity for their entire ser....
Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must include entire continuous service, including stop-gap employment, unless exempted by the appropriate Government.
Interpreting Act unequivocally indicate that payment of gratuity would not depend upon employee filing an application before employer demanding gratuity but will have to be paid immediately on cessat....
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
The availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the statutory provisions and the non-mandatory nature of the requirement of filing a written application for gratuity under Rule 7 of the....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
