Mcd v. Babu Ram

i >

5.. % 28.08.2009 Present:- Mr. Nalin Tripathi, ASC and Mr.i Mukesh Gupta and Ms. Saroj Bidawat,Advocates for the petitioner. None for the respondents. + W.P.(C.) Nos. 8322/2009. 6207/2008, 6208/2008, 6209/2008. 6219/2008. 753/2009. 1762/2009. 7166/2009, 7217/2009. 7260/2009. 6856/2009. 7276/2009, 7659/2009, 7756/2009, 7946/2009 & 7700/2009 * All these writ petitions are proposed comnnon order because they all raise determination whether the employees of prior to 22.07.2005 are entitled for gratu Gratuity Act, 1972 or not. The Controlling Authority as well as their separate orders passed against ,each of the employees involved in these writ petitionshas held that the employeesof MCD who had retired prior to 22.07.2005are entitledfor gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 because the MCD was granted exemption from applicabilityof the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide notification -dated 22.07.2005 w.e.f.

06.08.2005. This Court has already confirmed the decision of the ControllingAuthorityas well as of the AppellateAuthorityunder the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 vide its order dated 06.07.2009 in W.P.(C.) No. 9052/2009. The question involved in these writ to be disposed of by this a comnrion question for the MCD who had retired ity under the Payment of the Appellate Authority in Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I M petitions is squarely covered by the judgnnentof this Court in the afore-mentioned case. In that view of the matter, I do pot find any infirmity or perversity in the orders of the Controlling Authority or of the AppellateAuthoritythat may call for an in exercise of its extraordinary discretiona Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. Needlessto say that any miscellaneDusapplicationpending in any of these writ petitions stand dispos infructuous. Acopy of this order be kept in the fi :erference by this Court in "y writ jurisdiction under ed of as having become les of all the writ petitions which have been disposed of by this common order. AUGUST 28, 2009 •bsr' S.N.AGGARWAL, J