Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Smt. Rukmani has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay her the gratuity with interest in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The petitioner was working as Sweeper on regular basis in the Municipal Committee, Sonepat since 1950. She retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation in 1981. She was not paid any gratuity at the time of retirement either under the Act or under any other Statute, Rule and Regulation. 3. The claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent Municipal Committee is covered by the definition of Establishment as given under Section 1 sub-section (3) of the Act and the petitioner also falls under the definition of Employee as given under Section 2(e) of the said Act. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent-Municipal Committee is liable to pay gratuity to all its employees, who retired from service after enforcement of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In support of his claim, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kundan Lal Narang v. The State of Haryana through Secretary to Government, Haryana, Local Self Department, Chandigarh and Anr. (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 431. 4. In the written statement, the respondent Municipal Committee has contested the aforesaid claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the Government of India had extended the provisions of the Act to the Local Bodies under Section l(3)(c) of the Act with effect from 23.1.1982, therefore, the Government of Haryana has decided that the gratuity under the said Act will be payable to the Municipal employees with effect from 23.1.1982 i.e. the date when the Act became applicable to the Municipal Committees. Since in the instant case, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1981, i.e., prior to 23.1.1982, therefore, she is not entitled for any gratuity under the Act. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in Kundal Lals case (supra). Since in the instant case, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1981, i.e., prior to 23.1.1982, therefore, she is not entitled for any gratuity under the Act. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment in Kundal Lals case (supra). In that case also, the benefit of gratuity was denied to an employee of the Municipal Committee on the ground that the Municipal Committee was liable to pay gratuity after 23.1.1982 as the Central Government had extended the provisions of the Act with effect from the said date. While rejecting the contention of the Government as well as the Municipal Committee, it was held by this Court as under:- "4. The learned Judge held that the provisions of the Act were attracted to all establishments, which were covered by any law relating to the establishments in the State. The learned Judge referred to the provisions of Section 2(ii)(g) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Wages Act), which was applicable to all the States, including the State of Haryana. Section 2(ii)(g) of the Wages Act is in the following terms ;- "2(ii)(g); establishment in which any work relating to the construction, development or maintenance of buildings, roads, bridges or canals, or relating to operation connected with navigation, irrigation or the supply of water, or relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity or any other form of power is being carried on." The learned Judge in Chaman Lals case (supra) after referring to the definition of "establishment" as indicated in Sub-clause (g) observed:- "It is clear from the definition that a Corporation carrying on the work of construction, development and maintenance of roads is included in the term establishment. It cannot be disputed that a municipality looks after the construction, development and maintenance of roads, and therefore, it is covered by the above definition. Thus the provisions of the Gratuity Act are applicable to the respondent." With respect, we entirely concur in that view. It cannot be disputed that a municipality looks after the construction, development and maintenance of roads, and therefore, it is covered by the above definition. Thus the provisions of the Gratuity Act are applicable to the respondent." With respect, we entirely concur in that view. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, drew our attention to the Notification dated 23rd January, 1982, issued under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act, whereby the provisions of the Act had been made applicable to the Local Bodies and it was contended that issuance of such notification by the Central Government was indicative of the fact that the establishments like Local Bodies were covered by Section 1(3)(c) of the Act and not by Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, otherwise there would have been no necessity of issuing such a notification. 5. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. Perusal of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act would show that the Act was to apply to such establishments as were covered by any law relating to establishment and applicable in a given State. Question arises as to what was to happen to an establishment which was not covered by any such law. Such establishments were to fall in Section 1(3)(c) and the Act was to become applicable only if a notification was to be issued by the Central Government as envisaged by Section 1(3)(c) of the Act. So a notification in question under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act would not conclusively indicate that such establishments as are being now covered could not have been covered already by the provision of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. 6. For the reasons, aforementioned, we hold that such municipal employees in Haryana as retired after the enforcement of the Act are entitled to payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act." 6. In the written statement, the State has also pleaded that against the afore-said Division Bench Judgment, Civil Appeal filed by the State Government is pending before the Hon ble Apex Court in which the operation of the judgment was stayed. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the order dated November 20, 1996 passed by the Hon ble Apex Court vide which Civil No. 1180 of 1988 was dismissed. The counsel for the respondent could not controvert this position. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the order dated November 20, 1996 passed by the Hon ble Apex Court vide which Civil No. 1180 of 1988 was dismissed. The counsel for the respondent could not controvert this position. 7. In Kundan Lal Narangs case (supra), the Division Bench has already held that the provisions of the Act are applicable in case of all those employees, who retired after enforcement of the said Act and employees of such Municipal Committees are entitled, to payment of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay gratuity to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act within a period of six months from today with 9% interest from the date it became due up to the date of its payment.