JAWAHAR SINGH vs THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 30th January, 2024
Pronounced on: 29th April, 2024

+ W.P.(C) 10421/2018

JAWAHAR SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms.Richa Sharma, Advocate
(through VC)
versus

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD ….. Respondent
Through: Mrs Amrita Prakash CGSC with Mr Vishal Ashwani Mehta, Advocate and Mr Ganga Ram Ex. Engineer
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

FACTUAL HISTORY
1. The petitioner in the present case was initially working with the respondent (‘respondent Department’ hereinafter) as a muster roll employee on the position of Khalasi since 1972 and worked in the same capacity till 1990, thereafter, his services got regularized vide office memorandum (‘OM’ hereinafter) dated 10th July, 1990.
2. The petitioner got superannuated in the year 2014 from the post of wireman and thereafter submitted his application seeking gratuity under Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules 1972 read with Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ hereinafter). In the said application, the petitioner claimed for gratuity for total duration of his services including the period during which he served with the respondent Department on the muster roll which allegedly amounted to Rs.7,43,064/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, however, he received a gratuity amount of Rs.3,59, 436/- along with interest.
3. Aggrieved by non-payment of the claim amount, the petitioner submitted an application before the Controlling Authority for payment of the alleged remaining amount.
4. Pursuant to completion of the proceedings, the Controlling Authority allowed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 25th September, 2017 holding that the petitioner was entitled for gratuity on services rendered during the muster roll period.
5. Thereafter, the respondent Department filed an appeal against the order dated 25th September, 2017. Pursuant to completion of the proceedings, the Appellate Authority (‘learned Authority’ hereinafter) vide order dated 5th March, 2018 set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority and upheld the contentions raised by the respondent Department observing that the claim of the petitioner was time barred.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
7. In the instant petition, the petitioner workman has taken the following grounds for supplementing his claim:
A. Because the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act has erred in passing impugned order thereby rejecting the claim of the Petitioner only on the ground of delay without considering the merits in its proper perspective that the Petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity for the services rendered by him during muster roll period which was never disputed by the Respondent management. It is submitted that the Petitioner had put in 18 years of service on the post of Khallasi during muster roll period and his service was totally satisfactory to his superior officials.
B. Because the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated5.3.2018 erroneously allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority without considering that considering that the claim of gratuity is continuous wrong and no delay is attracted as well as this Hon’ble Court in MCD Vs Nand Kishore LPA No. 415/2002 has held that non-payment of gratuity is continuing wrong and there is no question of delay in approaching the controlling authority and the claim of gratuity cannot be denied on the ground of delay.
C. Because the Appeal No. 36(35)72017 PA DYC filed by the Respondent department before Appellate Authority under section7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act was not maintainable at all as it was filed without any application for condonation of delay because the Appeal was filed after delay of 60 days and the amount which was required to be deposited by the Respondent department at the time of preferring Appeal was not deposited before the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the Appeal of the Respondent department was not maintainable at all as the basic ingredients were missing at the time of preferring an Appeal before Appellate Authority which was not considered by the Appellate Authority.
D. D. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Netram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr 2018 (5) Scale 19 has held that: –
“16. In our considered opinion, once State regularized the service of the appellant while he was in State services, the appellant became entitled to count his total period of service for claiming the gratuity amount subject to his providing continuous service of 5 years as specified under section 2Aof the Act which, in this case, the appellant has duly proved.17. In the circumstances appearing in the case, it would be the travesty of justice if the appellant is denied his legitimate claim of gratuity despite rendering “continuous service” for a period of 25 years which even, according to the State, were regularized. The question as to from which date such services were regularized was of no significance for calculating the total length of service for claiming gratuity amount once the service were regularized by the State.”
E. Because the Controlling Authority vide order dated 25.9.2017 had rightly allowed the claim of the Petitioner on the premise that it is continuous wrong and the Petitioner is legally entitled for gratuity for services rendered during muster roll period. That the Controlling Authority has rightly framed two issues which were answered in favour of the Petitioner workmen. It was also held by the Controlling Authority that interest shall also be payable from the date of superannuation when the payment under the Act becomes due till the date of actual payment in terms of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 496 of 2008 titled as MCD Vs Rati Ram.
F. Because the Appellate Authority ought to have considered that services rendered during muster roll period shall be governed by Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and the intention and object of this special code has been enacted for the beneficial of employees working in factories, mines, oilfields, plantation, ports or other establishment and denying benefits accrued under this Act 1972shall defeat the entire purpose of this codified law of land. However, in many cases the Appellate Authority granted gratuity amount to similar situated employees of the Respondent department whereas rejecting the claim of the Petitioner without considering merits of case would discriminate the Petitioner thereby violating Article 14and 16 of Constitution of India.
G. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Gill vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2007) I SCC 663 wherein the Apex Court held as under: “Gratuity becomes payable as soon as the employee retires. The only condition therefore is rendition of five years continuous service”.
H. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that Allahabad Bank & Ors. v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees’ Association (2010) 2 SCC 44 wherein the Apex Court held as under:
“9. A plain reading of the provisions referred to hereinabove makes a abundantly clear that there is no escape from payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act unless the establishment is granted exemption from the operation of the provisions of the Act by the appropriate Government.
18. No establishment can decide for itself that employees in such establishments were in receipt of gratuity or pensionary benefits not less favourable than the benefits conferred under the Act.
19. This Court in Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Dharam Prakash Sharma and Ors.: (1998) 7 SCC 221 observed: “the mere fact that the gratuity is provided for under the Pension Rules will not disentitle him to get the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In view of the overriding provisions contained in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the provision for gratuity under the Pension Rules will have no effect.”
I. Because in view of sub section 3-A of Section 7 of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 the Petitioner herein is entitled to receive interest on payment of gratuity as it was delayed by the Respondent without any reasonable consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.K. Singia v. PNB, (2013) 3 SCC 472 while dealing with provisions of sub section (3-A) of section 7 of Act 1972 uphold that “appellant therein is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment, inconsonance with sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. We, accordingly, direct the PNB to pay to the appellant, interest at “the rate notified by the Central Government for repayment of long term deposits”. In same judgment it was further observed by the Apex Court that:-
“19. A perusal of Section 14 leaves no room for any doubt, that a superior status has been vested in the provisions of the Gratuity Act, vis-a-vis, any other enactment including any other instrument or contract inconsistent therewith. Therefore, in so far as the entitlement of an employee to gratuity is concerned, it is apparent that in cases where gratuity of an employee is not regulated under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority to the provisions of the Gratuity Act over all other provisions/enactments (including any instrument or contract having the force of law), the provisions of the Gratuity Act cannot be ignored.”
J. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that the Petitioner herein falls within the definition of ‘Employee’ as provided undersection 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 during relevant time when he had rendered services on muster roll period and provision of section 2(e) of Act is reproduced herein below;- “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice)employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are expressor implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.” Thus, on plain reading of \he said definition it is clear that the claim of the Petitioner cannot be defeated as for that relevant period for the gratuity is unclaimed pertains to muster roll period.
K. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that the Govt. of India through Director General (Works) CPWD has issued letter dated 26.6.2006 clarifying regarding the calculation of payment of gratuity of the muster roll employee in CPWD. It is important to submit here that DG (works) CPWD issued letter/order dated26.6.2006 qua the payment of gratuity to the workmen who have rendered service on muster roll. It is submitted that the circular dated 26.6.2006 was issued by the Director of DG (works) CPWD in respect of payment of gratuity to its casual hand receipt and muster roll workers under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, wherein after examining that whether Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is applicable to Casual/Hand Receipt/Muster Roll workers of CPWD, it was directed by DG (works) to make payment of gratuity to Casual/Hand Receipt/Muster Roll workers of CPWD under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
L. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that the DG (works)vide letter dated 16.4.2008 had clarified that the payment of gratuity is to be made in two parts (1) for the period of service rendered on muster roll is to be calculated under provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 (2) for the period of service rendered as regular employee the gratuity is to be made as per provisions contained in CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
M. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that in one case the Respondent department has issued letter dated 6.11.2007 whereby death gratuity was paid to the widow of workmen as per rule 50 of CCS Pension Rule 1972 inasmuch as his half services rendered on muster roll was also taken into consideration for the purpose of pension at the time of absorption in regular employment in terms of Rule 14 of CCS Pension Rule 1972.
N. Because the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. ND (36)7/2013-PAvide order dated 7.10.2013 while confirming the order dated19.12.2012 passed by the Controlling Authority thereby directed the payment of gratuity to the widow for the period of muster roll service rendered by her husband under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
O. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Ganahanume Gowda Vs Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. being SLP (C) 4114 of2002 had observed that Payment of Gratuity with or without interest as the case may be does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinary denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with penalty of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. In view of sub section (3-A) was added to section 7 by amendment which came in force from1.10.1987. There is clear mandate in provisions of section 7 to the employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity. There is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest in case the amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of section 8 of the Act.
P. Because the Appellate Authority did not consider that section 4 of the Act says that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous for not less than five years:-
a. on his superannuation.
b. on his retirement or resignation
c. on his death or disablement due to accident or disease.
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment is due to death or disablement.
It is submitted that the Petitioner has rendered continuous service of 18 years on muster roll without any interruption or break in service. The employment of the Petitioner was continuous and against the perennial work as well as the post on which the Petitioner was initially engaged was sanctioned post.
Q. Because the Office of Chief Executive Engineer, CPWD, Shankar Market, Electrical Division, New Delhi wrote letter dated 6.7.2014 to Superintendent Engineer, Electrical, CPWD Division-2, New Delhi, qua recording the entry of Muster Roll period for the purpose of record as well as for admissibility of allowances. It was also mentioned in the letter to follow the conditions laid down in para 2 of DG’s letter dated 26.6.2006.
R. Because the Controlling Authority vide order dated 25.9.2017 had rightly allowed the claim of the Petitioner on the premise that it is continuous wrong and the Petitioner is legally entitled for gratuity for services rendered during muster roll period. That the Controlling Authority has rightly framed two issues which were answered in favour of the Petitioner workmen. It was also held by the Controlling Authority that interest shall also be payable from the date of superannuation when the payment under the Act becomes due till the date of actual payment in terms of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 496 of 2008 titled as MCD Vs Rati Ram. S. Because in numerous cases the Appellate Authority granted payment of gratuity to such employees who had rendered their services during muster roll period in the Respondent department and such an order of Appellate Authority as well as Controlling Authority has been implemented by the Respondent department therefore it would amount to serious discrimination against the Petitioner.
8. In response to the above said grounds, the respondent Corporation has filed the counter affidavit which reads as follows:
“1. That the respondent is a Government department having office at ECD-V, CPWD, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner had joined the department on muster roll on 07.12.1972 as Khallasi and claimed that he worked on muster roll from 07.12.1972 to 16.07.1990. The petitioner was regularized on 16.07.1990 on the basis of his past muster roll services. The above-mentioned regularization changed the petitioner’s status from Muster Roll employee to a regular/ WC employee. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2014 as wireman from this division after completing almost 24 years of regular service with the respondent.
2. That the petitioner performed regular services with the CRWD for 24 years 01 month and 16 days after regularization. The retirement gratuity amounting to Rs.3,59,436.00/- as admissible for 24 years of regular service has been paid to the petitioner. A copy of payment of gratuity amounting to Rs.3,59,436.00/- has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. The petitioner had submitted the application for grant of gratuity for the period of 07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990 (for claimed Muster Roll period).
3. That as per Rule 50, Rule 10(1-B), CCS (TS) Rule 1965retirement gratuity is admissible to all employees who retire after completion to 5 year of qualifying services (Subjected to maximum 33 years) at the rate of “one forth” of emoluments foreach completed six – monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 16 V2 times of emoluments or Rs. 10Lakh (from 01.01.2006). Emoluments include DA on the date of cessation of service. A copy of the provision of CCS Rule 50, Rule 10(1-B), CCS (TS) Rule 1965 has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R2. The petitioner was a regular/work charged employee as Wireman at the time of retirement under the provision of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules in Group ‘D’ vide Directorate O.M. No. 15/3/78/EC-X dt. 27.11.1986. A copy of Directorate O.M. No. 15/3/78/EC-X dt. 27.11.1986 has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3. The total length of regular service of petitioner is 24 years 01 month and 16 days but petitioner claimed that his total service is 41 years 08 months24 days including muster roll period.
4. That all the pensionary benefits like pension, DCRG, Commutation of pension, insurance funds etc have been paid to workman as per COS (Pension) Rules.
5. That it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has not submitted complete document/ evidence in support of his claim of having rendered service for the continuous period from07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990.
6. That It is an admitted fact that a regular employee of the CPWD is a government employee governed by the COS Pension Rules. The regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.07.1990, on the basis of his past muster roll period services is also an admitted fact. Therefore, he was paid the due gratuity as per COS Rules 1965 for his regular service. The Act is not applicable to the petitioner as per provisions under section 2 (e)of the Act as he was regularized on the basis of his past service on muster roll that conferred the status of Government employee of CPWD under the Central Govt. w.e.f. 16.07.1990till his retirement on 31.08.2014.
7. That no cause of action arose on 31.08.2014 for filing the claim before the CA for want of applicability of the Act as he retired admittedly as a Govt. Employee as per provisions under section 2(e) of the Act.
8. That the petitioner has already received the gratuity for 12 times of emoluments for regular service as per CCS Rule. Ld. ALC-I has awarded gratuity for 9 times of emoluments on dated 25/09/2017, for muster roll period from 07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990 amounting to Rs. 3,11,050/- (i.e. 29,953 X 15 X 18/26 = 3,11,050/-) alongwith 10% simple interest from 01.09.2014. A copy of the order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the Ld. ALC-1 has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-4 Award of Ld. ALC was challenged in the court of ,Ld. appellate authority i.e. DLC-II. The Ld. appellate authority on dated 05/03/2018, set aside the order of Ld. ALC on the ground that the claim application was hopelessly time barred and for no reason when the employee Sh. Jawahar Singh, himself opted for regularization and the claim was filed after 25years of muster roll period, on the basis of wages drawn on31/08/14 as government employee even after accepting the gratuity as per CSS rules for his regular service. Hence at this stage there is no point in claiming the gratuity for muster roll period from 07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990 on the basis of last wages drawn as Govt. employee on 31.08.2014 after a lapse of 25 years approx. The claim application was hopelessly time barred and for no reason when the petitioner himself opted for regularization. A copy of the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Ld. DLC-II has been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-5.
PARAWISE REPLY
1. That the contents of para 1 are vehemently denied being wrong. It is correct that the petitioner had joined the department on muster roll on 07.12.1972 as Khallasi and his services were regularized on 16.07.1990. The above mentioned regularization changed the petitioner’s status from Muster Roll employee to a regular/ WC employee. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2014 as wireman from this division after completing almost 24 years of regular service with the respondent. According to the petitioner, he worked on muster roll with the CPWD for 17 years 07months and 08 days. He performed 24 years 01 month and 16 days services after regularization. The retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,59,436.00/- i.e. 12 times of emoluments as admissible for 24 years of regular service has been paid to the petitioner.
2. (i-xxv) That the contents of para 2 (i-xxv) are correct to the extent of being matter of record i.e. circulars and Memorandum issued by CPWD, provisions from Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 and CCS (Pension) Rule 1972. But, the petitioner’s claim i.e. gratuity of Rs. 7,43,064/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. is not maintainable and hereby vehemently denied being wrong. As per Rule 50, Rule 10(1-8), CCS (IS) Rule 1965 retirement gratuity is admissible to all employees who retire after completion to 5 year of qualifying service (Subjected to maximum 33 years) at the rate of “one forth” of emoluments foreach completed six – monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times the emoluments or Rs. 10 Lakh (from 01.01.2006). Emoluments include DA on the date of cessation of service. The petitioner was a regular/ work charged employee as Wireman at the time of retirement under the provision of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in Group ‘D’ vide Directorate O.M. No.15/3/78/EC-X dt. 27.11.1986. The total length of service of petitioner is 24 years 01 month and 16 days but petitioner claimed that his total service is 41 years 08 months 24 days including muster roll period.
All the pensionary benefits like pension, DCRG, Commutation of pension, insurance funds etc have been paid to workman as per CCS (Pension) Rules. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner has not submitted complete document/ evidence in support of his claim of having rendered service for the continuous period from 07.12.1972 for 15.07.1990.
It is an admitted fact that a regular employee of the CPWD is a government employee governed by the CCS Pension Rules. The regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.07.1990 is also an admitted fact. Therefore he was paid the due gratuity for regular service as per CCS Rules 1965. The Act is not applicable to the petitioner as per provisions under section 2 (e) of the Act as he was regularized on the basis of his past service on muster roll that conferred the status of Government employee of CPWD under the Central Govt. w.e.f.16.07.1990 till his retirement on 31.08.2014.
That the petitioner has already received the gratuity for 12 times of emoluments for regular service as per COS Rule. Ld. ALC-I has awarded gratuity for 09 times of emoluments on dated 25/09/2017, for muster roll period from 07.12.1972 to15.07.1990 amounting to Rs. 3,11,050/- (i.e. 29,953 X 15 X 18 / 26 = 3,11,050/-) alongwith 10% simple interest from 01.09.2014. Award of Ld. ALC was challenged in the court of Ld. appellate authority. The Ld. appellate authority on dated 05/03/2018, set aside the order of Ld. ALC on the ground that the claim application was hopelessly time barred and for no reason when the employee Sh. Jawahar Singh, himself opted for regularization and the claim was filed after 25 years of muster roll period, on the basis of wages drawn on 31/08/14 as government employee even after accepting the gratuity as per CSS rules for his regular service. Hence at this stage there is no point in claiming the gratuity for muster roll period from07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990 on the basis of last wages drawn as Govt. employee on 31.08.2014 after a lapse of 25 years approx. The claim application was hopelessly time barred and for no reason when the petitioner himself opted for regularization.
3. That the contents of para 3 needs no reply being matter or record.
4. That the contents of para 4 are formal and hence need no comment.
5. The respondent agrees to count 50% of service rendered on Muster Roll for payment of gratuity as per SDG(DR)’s Speaking Order issued vide letter no. 53(57)/ DDG/ (HQ)/ DR/ Court Case/ 2017/ 1258 (H) dated 04-08-2017 on submission of complete authenticated documents/ evidence in support of petitioner’s claim subject to maximum of 16 14 times of the emoluments i/c gratuity amount of Rs. 359436/- i.e. 12 times of emoluments already paid for regular services. (Copy of Speaking order of SDG(DR)’s has been annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureR-6).”

9. Pursuant to conclusion of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner had also filed a brief synopsis and the same was taken on record and perused by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS
(on behalf of the petitioner)
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Authority erred in passing the impugned order only on the grounds of delay without considering the merits of the case.
11. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in appreciating the settled position of law and without considering that the claim of gratuity is a continuous wrong and no delay is attracted on the same. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in MCD v. Nand Kishore1 whereby, the non-payment of gratuity was termed as a continuous wrong.
12. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in adjudicating the appeal filed by the respondent Department without considering that there was a delay of 60 days in filing the said appeal and the Department also failed to deposit the amount required for adjudication of the appeal.
13. It is submitted that the Controlling Authority had rightly allowed the claim of the petitioner on the premise that the non-payment of gratuity is a continuous wrong, therefore, setting aside a legally tenable decision is bad in law and thus liable to be overturned.
14. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in not appreciating that the petitioner duly falls within the definition of ‘employee’ as provided under Section 2(e) of the Act for the time period when he had rendered services on muster roll in the respondent Department.
15. It is submitted that the learned Authority failed to consider that the letter dated 16th April, 2008 as passed by the DG (works) had clarified that the payment of gratuity is to be made in two parts and it includes the period of service rendered on muster roll.
16. It is submitted that in order dated 7th October, 2013 passed in Appeal No. ND (36)7/2013-PA, the learned Authority had directed the payment of gratuity to the widow of another similarly placed employee for the services rendered by him on muster roll, therefore, denial of the same to the petitioner is wrong and in direct contravention to the orders passed by the learned Authority in cases of similarly placed employees.
17. It is submitted that the learned Authority erred in appreciating that the payment of gratuity is not decided on the discretion of the employer rather the same is a statutory compulsion, therefore, non-grant of the same is illegal and invalid.
18. It is submitted that the office of Executive Engineer of the respondent Department had directed Superintendent Engineer to include the petitioner’s muster roll period for the record and admissibility of allowances vide letter dated 6th July, 2014, therefore, the respondent Department cannot deny the same at this stage.
19. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition be allowed and reliefs be granted as prayed.

(on behalf of respondent)
20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Department vehemently opposed the present petition submitting to the effect that the learned Authority had rightly allowed the appeal filed by the Department and the same is legally valid.
21. It is submitted that the petitioner had performed the regular services with the respondent Department for a period of 24 years 01 month and 16 days and the gratuity for the same has been duly paid by the Department.
22. It is submitted that as per Rule 50, Rule 10(1-B), CCS (TS) Rule 1965, the retirement gratuity is payable to all the employees who retire after completion of 5 years of qualifying services, however, the same is restricted maximum period of 33 years of services.
23. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to submit complete documents/evidence in support of his claim of having rendered services for a continuous period from 7th December, 1972 till his superannuation.
24. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent Department and governed by the CCS pension rules, therefore, the payment of gratuity of the petitioner was done in accordance with the applicable CCS Rules, i.e. the Rules of 1965.
25. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner is time barred as he has filed the same after 25 years of a muster roll period, therefore, the same is hopelessly time barred and cannot be allowed when the petitioner himself opted for regularization of his services.
26. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition being devoid of any merits may be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
28. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Authority wrongly set aside the well reasoned order passed in his favor by the Controlling for payment of gratuity for the services rendered by him during his time as a muster roll employee in the respondent Department. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in MCD v. Nand Kishore (supra) whereby, the Division Bench held that the non-payment of gratuity would amount to a continuous wrong and therefore, cannot be denied. Furthermore, the petitioner has also drawn an analogy with similarly placed employees where the respondent Authority duly granted gratuity for the period served on the muster roll.
29. In rival submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent Department has rebutted the above said contention of the petitioner submitting that the statutory prescription for grant of gratuity does not allow the respondent Department to pay anything for the period exceeding 33 years of services and since the petitioner opted for regularization of his services, he cannot demand the payment of gratuity for the period served on the muster roll. It was further averred by the learned counsel that the claim for the said gratuity had been filed by the petitioner after an inordinate delay of 25 years, therefore, the same being time barred cannot be allowed.
30. Therefore, the limited question for adjudication before this Court is whether denial of the gratuity for the period served by the petitioner on the muster roll is legally tenable or not.
31. The term ‘employee’ has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act which reads as under:
“(e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, [3] [***] in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, [4] [and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity].”

32. The plain reading of the above cited provision makes it clear that for the purpose of the Act, the term ‘employee’ means an individual employed on wages in an establishment. The only exception to a person to be not categorized as an employee is that such person should not hold a position in the Central or State Government and the said position being governed by any other Act or Rules providing for payment of the gratuity.
33. As per the factual matrix, before regularization of his services, the petitioner had served in the respondent Department on muster roll from the period between 1972 to 1990, therefore, complying with the criteria of being an employee under the Act.
34. The relevant provision i.e. Section 2A of the Act defines the term ‘continuous services’ where an employee is entitled to gratuity if he has worked for more than 240 days in a given year and completed 5 years of services. Therefore, the petitioner fulfills both the conditions, i.e. being an employee of the establishment and working for 5 years.
35. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent Department vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner were regularized from the year 1990, therefore, he cannot be made eligible to get gratuity for the period served on muster roll in the organization.
36. Now coming to the denial of the petitioner’s claim by the learned Authority. The relevant extracts of the impugned order denying the gratuity claims of the petitioner reads as under:
“This memorandum of appeal was filed on 05.12.2017 under sub section (7) of Section (7) of the P.G. Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by The Executive Director, ECD-V, CPWD, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi. (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’) against Sh. Jawahar Singh, Late Lakhi Ram, C/o House No. 4 Gali No. 1, Karkardooma Village, Delhi-110092. (here-in-after referred to. as Respondent) assailing the order dated 25.09.2017/06.10.2017 of the Controlling Authority & Assistant Labour Commissioner ©, Delhi-I (Hereinafter referred to as ‘CA’) in Claim Application No. ALC- 1/36(14)2015-NK directing the appellant to pay the gratuity amount of Rs 311050/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum for delayed payment w.e.f. 31-08-2014 till the date of actual payment.
The hearing in the above appeal was held on several dates and finally on 15.02.2018 when both the parties were present. The appellant has stated that the Respondent was retired on 31.08.2014 as wireman from this division. He worked on muster roll with the CPWD for 17 years 07 months and 08 days and 24 years 01 month and 16 days service after regularization. The regularization changed the status from a muster roll employee to a regular employee of the CPWD. The regular employees of CPWD are government employees and CCS Rules are applicable to them. The respondent has been paid retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 359436/- as admissible for 24 years of regular service but respondent claimed that his total service is 41 years 08 months 24 days including muster roll period. Therefore, under Rule 50 and Rule 10(2) CCS Rules1965, he was eligible for retirement gratuity for 12 times of /emoluments amounting to Rs. 359436/- has already been paid to the respondent. It is further stated that order passed by the CA is arbitrary, illegal and is a result of non-application of mind; hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
The Respondent has submitted that the order of the CA is just and fair and he is entitled for gratuity as determined by the CA as per provisions of the Act as the appellant has no power to withhold the gratuity. The respondent submitted that the workman continuously worked with the above management w.e.f. 07.12.1972to 15.07.1990 on muster roll and his service were regularized w.e.f.16.07.1990 and he has received gratuity on retirement in respect of his regular service i.e. w.e.f. 16.07.1990 to 31.08.2014 amounting Rs. 359436/-. The gratuity of muster roll period was also to be paid amount Rs. 311050/- which has not been paid by the above management despite of clear-cut orders of DGW. CPWD dated 26.06.2006 and 16.04.2008. The appellant intentionally delayed the payment. The claim of interest on late payment of Gratuity is well within rules. The appeal has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and without any cause of action, hence, liabl13 to be dismissed on this ground alone.
On perusal of relevant records submitted by both the parties during the hearing of appeal and arguments thereto along with the records in claim application No. ALC-1/36(14)/2015-NK, it is evident that there is no dispute as to the period of service rendered by Sh. Jawahar Singh from 07.12.1972 to 15.07.1990 as a muster roll employee and from 16.07.1990 to 31.08.2014 as a regular employee of the CPWD. There is no dispute regarding retirement date of Sh. Jawahar Singh. It is an admitted fact that a regular employee of the CPWD is a government employee governed by the CCS PensionRules. The regularization of Sh. Jawahar Singh w.e.f. 16/07/1990 is also the admitted fact. The half period of total service on muster roll is taken for qualifying service for payment of gratuity as per CCS Rules, therefore he was paid the due gratuity as per CCS Rules19165. The Act is not applicable to the respondent as per provisions under section 2(e) of the Act as he was regularized on the basis of his past service on muster roll that conferred the status of government employee of CPWD under the Central Government w.e.f. 16/7/1990 till his retirement on 31/08/2014. I am of the considered opinion that no cause of action arose on 31/8/2014 for filing the claim before the CA for want of applicability of the Act as here tired admittedly as a government employee as per provisions under section 2(e) of the Act. The respondent has already received the gratuity as per CCS Rules. Hence at this stage there is no point in claiming the gratuity for the muster roll period from 07,12.1972 to15.07.1990 on the basis of last wages drawn as government employee on 31/8/2014 after a lapse of 25 years approx. The claim application was hopelessly time barred and for no reason when the employee Sh. Jawahar Singh himself opted for regularization.
The CA has failed to appreciate the facts of the case as no specific reason is given for filing this claim after 25 years on the basis of wages drawn on 31/8/2014 as government employee even after accepting the gratuity as per CCS Rules.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.09.2017 of the CA is devoid of any merit. The order of the CA is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.09.2017 of the CA is devoid of any merit. The order of the CA is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed.
Given under my hand and seal this on 05.03.2018 and parties are informed accordingly.”
37. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is made out that the learned Authority had set aside the order dated 25th September, 2017 passed by the Controlling Authority mainly on two counts, i.e. delay in filing the claim and seeking the gratuity for muster roll period on the basis of last drawn wages as Government employee.
38. Therefore, this Court needs to determine whether the denial of gratuity to the petitioner for the muster roll period on the basis of above can be termed legal or not.
39. Before delving into the said aspect, this Court deems it imperative to discuss the settled position of law regarding the payment of gratuity to an employee. The said position has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again where the payment of gratuity being a statutory compulsion has been reiterated by the Courts.
40. In H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.,2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystallized the principles regarding payment of gratuity and held as under:
“7. It is evident from Section 7(2) that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), he shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits; provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. From the provisions made in Section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be. However, under the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under Section 8, provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, if not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. The Collector shall recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled. A penal provision is also made in Section 9 for non-payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity with or without interest, as the case may be, does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278 : (1985) 50 FLR 145] . Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Sub-section (3-A) was added to Section 7 by an amendment, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1987. In the case of Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles [(1988) 4 SCC 212 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 947 : (1988) 57 FLR 543] this aspect was noticed in the following words : (SCC pp. 214-15, para 4)
“4. There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the controlling authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section (3-A) in Section 7. That provision has prospective application.”
8. In the background of this legal position, now we turn to the facts of the present case. The appellant was under suspension from 15-3-1999 to 21-5-1999. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from services of the respondent Corporation on 1-1-2000. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, disposed of the writ petition issuing directions to the respondent Corporation to settle the full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, gratuity, cash equivalent to leave salary, deferred leave, concession amount etc. As regards the claim of interest on gratuity, the learned Single Judge held as under:
“Since there was a doubt as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the gratuity, cash equivalent of leave salary etc., in view of the divergent opinion of the courts during the pendency of an enquiry proceeding of a retired employee, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of interest for the belated payment of gratuity and other amounts.”
9. It is clear from what is extracted above from the order of the learned Single Judge that interest on delayed payment of gratuity was denied only on the ground that there was doubt whether the appellant was entitled to gratuity, cash equivalent to leave etc., in view of divergent opinion of the courts during the pendency of enquiry. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant was entitled to payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3-A) of the Act. It was not the case of the respondent that the delay in the payment of gratuity was due to the fault of the employee and that it had obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. As noticed above, there is a clear mandate in the provisions of Section 7 to the employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. There is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest in case the amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no discretion was left to deny the interest to the appellant on belated payment of gratuity. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court, having found that the appellant was entitled to interest, declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as regards the claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity only on the ground that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge could not be said to be arbitrary. In the first place in the light of what is stated above, the learned Single Judge could not refuse the grant of interest exercising discretion as against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. The Division Bench, in our opinion, committed an error in assuming that the learned Single Judge could exercise the discretion in the matter of awarding interest and that such a discretion exercised was not arbitrary.”

41. Upon perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that Section 7 of the Act mandates employers to determine and notify gratuity amounts promptly and the same shall be paid within 30 days of becoming payable, otherwise, the delay shall attract interest.
42. In the above cited judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also made it clear that the payment of gratuity is a socially beneficial measure and cannot be ordinarily denied by the employer.
43. In support of his contention of being rightly eligible for gratuity for the period served on muster roll, the learned counsel for the petitioner also supplemented the OM dated 26th June, 2006 issued by the DG works, CPWD. The said OM reads as under:
“1. Some of the field units of CPWD have requested this Directorate to clarify, as to whether the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the Casual/Hand-receipt/Muster-roll workers of CPWD. The matter has been examined/considered in this Directorate, in consultation with the M/o Urban Development & M/o labour and it has been clarified that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to Casual/Muster-roll/ Hand receipt/daily-rated workers of CPWD
2. Accordingly, you are requested, to make the payment of Gratuity to the Casual/Muster-roll/Hand-receipt/daily-rated workers of CPWD, as admissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Current/pending Court cases on the similar issue, if any, may be defended/got settled from the respective Courts, accordingly. These clarifications may please be brought to the notice of all concerned
3. This issues with the approval of M/o Urban Development vide their U.O. No. 1142/06-EW-2 dated 9.5.2006.”

44. A plain reading of the above cited OM clarifies that the official concerned of the respondent Department had issued the said OM to clarify that the Act shall be extended to the employees working on muster roll in the respondent Department.
45. Therefore, the question regarding non-payment of the same does not arise as the employees working in the said category are duly entitled for payment of gratuity if they fulfill the minimum threshold, i.e. 5 years of working.
46. In the pleadings, even though the respondent Department has claimed that there is no proof regarding continuous employment of the petitioner from the year 1972 to 1990, however, the said fact being non-disputed before the learned Authority makes it clear that the said contention regarding lack of evidence is a mere dilatory tactic on part of the respondent Department.
47. Now coming to the question of delay in filing the claim, as said earlier, an employer is duty bound to provide for the payment of gratuity accrued towards an employee, however, filing such a claim by the employee does not prescribe any time period in the statute.
48. In M.C.D v. Nand Kishore (supra) the Division Bench of this Court categorically held that the non-payment of gratuity is a continuing wrong and therefore, the question of delay does not arise. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“2. The respondent was employed as driver in the Health Department on 10th December, 1957. He retired from service on 30th Jyun, 1998. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,09,098/- to the respondent as gratuity. The respondent not being satisfied with the amount of gratuity paid to him, filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority held the respondent entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 47,301/- which was short paid to him by the appellant. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Controlling Authority did not take into consideration delay of the respondent in filing the application under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. The grievance of the appellant is misconceived as the non-payment of gratuity due to the respondent was a continuing wrong and there was no question of any delay in approaching the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Controlling Authority or the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.”

49. A similar opinion was given by the Kerala High Court in the case titled Neelakandan Namboothiri v. State of Kerala3 whereby the Court held that the Act being a social legislation needs to be interpreted in a liberal manner. The relevant parts of the same reads as under:
“6. Rule 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Rules of course make reference to application to be filed, and within a prescribed time. But these cannot of course be taken as over reaching the provisions of S. 7(2) of the Act. Perhaps the impact of the Amending Acts (22 of 1987 with effect from 1 October, 1987 and 25 of 1984 with effect from 1 July, 1984 has not been taken notice of by the rule-making body. Whether or not an application is filed, now it is unambiguously laid down that an employer has a duty to pay gratuity. If he disputes it he has to advice the employee of his proposal. The delay can start to run from that point of time. In the aforesaid view, I do not think that the claim of the second respondent has to be rejected on the issue of limitation.”
7. Being a beneficial piece of legislation it has to get a liberal interpretation and the intention of the statute becomes highly relevant when an issue for rejection of a claim is pressed. Establishments which employ less than ten persons are normally outside the purview of the Act. The statute requires for calling of nominations from the serving employees, and by implication, maintenance of complete and proper records including wages that are payable from time to time, and also furnishing of yearly returns to the inspectors appointed. These are indicative of the mandatory requirement to pay the dues admissible to an employee, who at times may not be aware of his rights. The right being statutory, cannot be equated to a debt, and principles of Limitation Act strictly are not applicable. As pointed out earlier, the liability can be seen only as an obligation which the employer has to obligatorily discharge. Therefore the delay in making an application cannot be permitted to be capitalised. Further in the present case there was no claim that the employee was advised to a rejection of his application, and therefore, in fact the question of delay did not arise. For the only reason that the enforcement authorities did not satisfactorily deal with the issue the matter need not be remitted back, since I have on examination found that delay was not permissible to be pleaded because of the default of the employer.”
50. The perusal of aforesaid cases make it crystal clear that the non-payment of gratuity being a continuing wrong does not attract the provisions of limitation.
51. From the above cited paragraphs, it is evident that the statute mandates calling for nominations from employees, maintaining proper records, and furnishing yearly returns, imply an obligation for employers to pay due wages and the same cannot be made subject to the Limitation Act, 1963. Furthermore, the employers are obligated to discharge their duties without delay, regardless of any potential lack of awareness on the employee’s part regarding their rights, and any delay cannot be capitalized upon by the employer.
52. It is also imperative to mention that the above cited cases clarifies that the intention of the enactment of the Act is to benefit the people and therefore, the same is termed as a social legislation, hence, denying claim on the grounds of delay in filing such claim would amount to injustice to an employee.
53. Now coming to the facts of the instant case, the judicial dictum as well as the material on record clearly depicts that the services rendered by the petitioner can be categorized in two parts, where the time period between the year 1972 to 1990 would be covered under the Act and the period thereafter, i.e. upon regularization would be counted as per the CCS Rules governing the pensionary benefits of the Government employees.
54. At last, this Court also deems it appropriate to draw an analogy with the similar claims filed by the other employees. In CPWD v. Ghanshyam Singh4 a similar issue was adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in following manner:
“4. Impugning the award, Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Labour Court, while directing the petitioner to count the muster roll services of the respondents for quantifying the gratuity payable to them, has relied on an OM dated 14th May, 1968 without appreciating the fact that the said OM had ceased to be operative after the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were notified. He further states that even otherwise, the said OM only provides for counting the periods during which the workman is paid from the contingency fund and does not include the period during which he is paid wages from work charge fund, as is the case of the respondents who were paid from the work charge fund while working on muster roll. He, therefore, prays that the impugned Award be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned Award, states that there is no infirmity in the Award as the learned Labour Court has not only noticed the effect of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, but also considered the fact that the DOPT had issued a detailed OM dated 14th May, 1968 directing inclusion of the period during which a workman has rendered services on muster roll for the purposes of gratuity, which position has been reiterated by issuance of a Circular dated 26th June, 2006. He, thus, states that the learned Court was justified in directing the petitioner to pay gratuity to the respondents by counting the period during which they have worked on muster roll. He also places reliance on the decision in Union of India v. Bhagwan Shahai, (2015) 216 DLT 404, wherein this Court while dealing with the claims for pension of similarly placed workmen in the service of CPWD, had directed continuity of their service on muster roll while computing the period for which they are entitled to get gratuity.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record. In my view, once the Director General (Works), CPWD himself issued a circular as late as on 26th June, 2006 clarifying that gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, was payable not only to casual workers but also to daily rated and muster roll workers, there is no reason as to why the respondents should be deprived of the benefit of gratuity for their period of service on muster roll. Even otherwise, the Payment of Gratuity Act does not differentiate in the casual or regular period of service and in fact includes all types of service. There is nothing to show that the intention of the legislature was to exclude muster roll service while computing the gratuity of an employee who is subsequently regularised. The Act being a piece of Social Welfare Legislation cannot be interpreted so narrowly so as to exclude the muster roll service of employees like the respondents who have subsequently been regularised.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I find absolutely no perversity or infirmity in the impugned Award dated 21st June, 2011. It is further directed that in case the gratuity of any of the respondents has become due during the pendency of the present writ petition, the same will be released immediately along with applicable interest in terms of the impugned Award.”
55. The perusal of the above cited extracts makes it evident that the similarly placed employees were granted reliefs by including their services on muster roll for calculation of the gratuity amount due to them.
56. While dismissing the petition of the respondent Department, the Co-ordinate Bench also held that the Act being a piece of social welfare legislation cannot be interpreted so narrowly and therefore, denial of the same would amount to defeating the purpose of enactment of such legislation.
57. In the aforesaid case, the Court had also referred to the letter dated 26th June, 2006 issued by the respondent Department whereby, it was duly agreed that the payment of gratuity would include the calculation of the muster roll period.
58. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the denial of gratuity to the petitioner for the period served on the muster roll in the respondent Department is illegal and violation of the rights of the workman.

CONCLUSION
59. The social benefit legislations have been enacted by the legislature of this country after keeping in mind the constitutional mandate for providing such benefits to the citizens of this Country. Therefore, the denial of the said rights would not only amount to violation of legal right, but the same also tantamount to the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens.
60. The benefits of social legislation can only be fully extended to the employees when non-adherence to the same by the employer are considered as a continuous wrong, therefore, providing the employee a right to demand the same at an appropriate stage.
61. In the instant case, the material on record, ie. the letter dated 26th June, 2006 as well as order passed by this Court in CPWD v. Ghanshyam Singh (supra) makes it clear that the period of services rendered by the petitioner on muster roll cannot be excluded for calculation of the gratuity amount.
62. In light of the foregoing discussion on facts and the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the learned Authority ought to have calculated the gratuity amount for the period between 1972 to 1990, and rejection of the same on the ground of delay amounts to violation of rights granted to the petitioner by way of enactment of social legislation.
63. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 5th March, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, New Delhi. The respondent Department is directed to calculate the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the services rendered on muster roll from the period 1972 to 1990 and decide the same expeditiously.
64. Pending applications, if any, stands dispose of.
65. Judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2024
SV/AV/DB
1 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1352
2 (2003) 3 SCC 40
3 2001 SCC OnLine Ker 60
4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7229
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

W.P.(C) 10421/2018 Page 33 of 33