Principally, relying on the said decision, the Respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming payment of gratuity on the same terms and for recovery of purported arrears of the difference of gratuity.
576 of 2004.
Another original application was filed by the Respondent questioning the validity of the said order before the Tribunal which was registered as OA No.
One Pritam Singh who is said to be similarly situated, however, claimed and obtained such benefits of gratuity in terms of the provisions companytained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for short the 1972 Act in terms whereof the element of dearness allowance was calculated at the rate of 125 of basic salary.
The said application was allowed by an order dated 1.12.2004 holding inter alia Mr. De, the learned companynsel for the respondents to a query replied that Pritam Singh case was companyplied with by the Railway Authorities.
Hence the appeal is dismissed.
It is most unfortunate to state here that the DRM treated the matter in a different manner in order to avoid payment and has passed such illegal order by stating that dismissal of SLP by the Honble Supreme Court does number amount to a decision on merits.
The Respondent was a Station Master working in Sodepur Railway Station, Eastern Railway.
The Tribunal by an order dated 25.2.2004 directed the Appellant to companysider the Respondents case whereupon a speaking order was passed by the Appellant on 4.6.2004 inter alia holding that the case of the Respondent was number governed by the provisions of the 1972 Act but by the provisions of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 for short the 1993 Rules .
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
21446 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
He retired on 31.1.1995.
