P.P.S Kapoor And Ors. vs Food Corporation Of India (Through: Its Chairman & Managing Director) And Ors

Sunil Gaur, J

This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, respondent-Food Corporation of India (FCI) was called upon to decide

petitioners’ Representation, which stands decided vide impugned order of 1st March, 2017. All that has been said in the impugned order is that

Department of Public Enterprises has not issued any guidelines for enhancing the ceiling of gratuity of Central Public Enterprise’s employees

drawing Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 and so, petitioners’ claim for enhanced rate of gratuity payable from 1st

January, 2006 stands declined while further noting that enhanced rate of gratuity is payable from 25th April, 2010, i.e. the date when amendment in the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 became effective.

To assail the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioners draws the attention of this Court to respondent- FCI’s Communication of 9th

August, 1999 (Annexure P-4 colly) to point out that as per Circular 47/1996 issued by respondent-FCI, the stipulation as contained in the Payment of

Gratuity Act will be applicable to FCI employees under the Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) and Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern,

except those employees who have opted for Central Government terminal gratuity benefits. Attention of this Court is also drawn to another Circular of

6th January, 2014 of respondent-FCI whereby benefit of enhancement of ceiling limit of the gratuity amount has been granted w.e.f. 1st January, 2007

to FCI employees who are drawing IDA pay scales.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in view of Circular of 6 th January, 2014, petitioners are also entitled to enhanced ceiling limit of

gratuity w.e.f. 1st January, 2007, as CDA and IDA cadre employees of FCI have to be treated at par.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, I find that the aforesaid aspect has not at all been considered and the impugned order is bereft of

any reasoning or rationale, therefore, it is quashed with direction to concerned authority of second respondent to decide petitioner’s Representation

afresh within twelve weeks, while specifically dealing with the aforesaid aspect and recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission. The fate of

petitioners’ Representation be conveyed to them within two weeks thereafter, so that they may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need

be.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.