Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 346 (MP)

Pushpalata Jain v. Cloth Market Kanya Vidhyalaya

2012-03-27

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. The prayer in the petition is to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity and other benefits payable to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady aged 72 years. Petitioner joined services of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 6.7.1961 and retired on completion of age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.4.1998. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is entitled for the benefit of arrears and revision of pay as per 5th Pay Commission. It is submitted that the benefit of 5th Pay Commission is given in the year 1999 but retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.96. While the petitioner has retired in the year 1998. It is submitted that since the benefit was given retrospectively, therefore, petitioner is entitled for realization of pay and arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to 30.4.1998. It is submitted that salary of the petitioner was in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 2000-3000/- but as per 5th Pay Commission salary of the petitioner should be fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 2375-4175/-. Learned counsel further submits that so far as gratuity is concerned, the gratutity was not payable to the employees of the educational institutions earlier but by Amendment Act, 2009, the gratuity is payable with effect from 3.4.97 while the petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.4.98. It is submitted that since the petitioner is retired thereafter, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for gratuity as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner has rendered the services of 37 years, therefore, petitioner is entitled for leave encashment. Lastly, learned counsel submits that so far as for pension is concerned, the scheme was framed by the State Government for the benefit of the employees of Government Aided Educational Institutions, which came in force in the year 1989. According to which the deducation was to be made by the institution monthly from the salary of the employee and equal amount has to be deposited by the Government. It is submitted that after her retirement petitioner was forced to withdraw Rs. 61,616/-,which was the contribution of the petitioner but neither the benefit of the scheme was given to the petitioner nor the amount which was required to be deposited by the respondent No. 1 was paid. Learned counsel further submits that similar benefit was extended to Smt. Nirmala Barot, Smt. Sarita Kale and Smt. Asha Namjoshi but discrimination has been made with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that similar benefit was extended to Smt. Nirmala Barot, Smt. Sarita Kale and Smt. Asha Namjoshi but discrimination has been made with the petitioner. It is submitted that petition be allowed and necessary directions be issued. 3. From perusal of the record it appears that no specific order has been passed by respondent no. 1 relating to the demand, which has been raised by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case petition filed by the respondent is disposed of with a direction that respondent No. 1 shall consider each and every demand made by the petitioner mentioned in the order and shall consider the same by passing a reasoned order keeping in view the relevant laws and also the benefit extended to other similarly situated employees within a period of two months. It is made clear that if the respondent No. 1 is of the view that petitioner is entitled for any amount, then respondent No. 1 shall make adjustment of all the amounts, which has already been paid by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner from time-to-time after retirement. 4. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.