Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Vimla vs Health & Family Welfare on 11 September, 2025
1 OA No.224/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.224/2023
MA No. 257/2023
Order reserved on: 26.08.2025
Order pronounced on: 11.09.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Dr. Vimla Aged about 67 yrs.,
W/o Dr. Shailendra Kumar Maurya,
R/o B-5/159, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
Designation- Presently retired as
Contractual Junior Specialist (Pathology)
(Group-A) at Guru Gobind Singh Hospital,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi-110027, GNCTD.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Varun Mudgil)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Family and Health Welfare,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Medical Superintendent,
Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, GNCTD,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-110027.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
ORDER
1. Factual Matrix 1.1 The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant joined as Jr. Specialist (Pathology) with the respondent No.1 on contractual basis w.e.f. 07.06.2004 at MB Hospital Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 2 OA No.224/2023 GNCTD. The respondents were renewing the contractual employment from time to time and the applicant was finally relieved from the contractual service on 25.05.2021, attaining the age of 65. The applicant submitted representation dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure A-4) for release of gratuity and other post retiral benefits. The respondents vide their order dated 14.06.2022 (Annexure A-1) rejected the claim of the applicant.
1.2 Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:
"a. PASS an order/direction directing the Respondent No.2 to quash the impugned order dated: 14/06/2022 vide order no. F.3/1/A/803/2008/GGSGH/Estt./ PF/12333, refusing the Payment of Gratuity to the Applicant, annexed as Annexure A-1; &/or b. PASS an order/direction directing the Respondents to implement the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in true letter and spirit, for extending of the benefits of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the Applicant, &/or c. PASS an order/direction to the Respondents to release the payment of the Gratuity of the Applicant for her 17 years of service with the Respondents as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; &/or d. PASS any such other and further order which is necessary in the interest of justice & award cost of the litigation to the Applicant."
2. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 3 OA No.224/2023
3. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Applicant 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has completed continuous service for more than five years, rather she has completed nearly 17 years of service with the respondents, and therefore, she is entitled for payment of gratuity.
3.2 Learned counsel for applicant refers to the provision of Section 2(E) r/w 2(S) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, which are reproduced as under:
"Section 2(e) - "Employee"
"employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, 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."
Section 2(s) - "Wages"
"wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance."
3.3 As per the definition of 'wages' mentioned in Section 2(S), the applicant was paid the emoluments which includes also DA. Reading the two sections together, the applicant is entitled for payment of gratuity.
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 4 OA No.224/2023 3.4 In support of his averments, learned counsel for applicant cites Annexure A-5, judgment dated 03.08.2021 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11154/2019, in Janardan Sharma Vs. GNCT of Delhi. Particularly, he refers to paragraph 8 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under:
"8. In the other limb of his submissions, though Mr. Rajappa, ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were part time employees and therefore, the Act, 1972 was not applicable to the respondents, he falls to point out any statutory provision, rule or regulation, in support of such submissions. The Court does not find merit even in the submission so made. An employee is an employee, whether on casual, ad-hoc or part time basis. The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2, which reads as under:
"wages" means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment and which are paid or are payable to him in cash and Includes dearness allowance but does not include any bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime wages and any other allowance.""
4. Submission by Learned Counsel for the Respondents 4.1 Per contra, referring to the terms of contract of similar kind of employees Dr. Saroj Bala, which has been filed by the applicant vide MA No. 776/2024, learned counsel for respondents submits that the terms and conditions of contractual appointment does not permit for payment of any gratuity to similarly placed employees like the applicant. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 5 OA No.224/2023 He submits that the applicant has not 'retired from government service' rather the contractual service of the applicant stood severed on 25.05.2025. Citing the provision of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant is not entitled for payment of gratuity. He refers to Rule 50(1)(a), which reads as under:
"A Govt. Servant, who has completed 05 years" qualifying service and has become eligible for Service Gratuity of Pension under Rule-49, shall, on his retirement be granted(Retirement Gratuity) equal to 1/4th of his emoluments for each completed Six monthly periods of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 161/2 times of emolument."
4.2 Learned counsel for respondents submits that facts of Janardan Sharma (supra) are distinctly different from the facts of present case. He submits that in Janardan Sharma (supra) the petitioners are 'Teachers' whereas the present applicants were appointed as contractual Doctors. In said WP(C), the legal position regarding the definition of employee described in paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
"3. Vide notification dated August 07, 1995, the respondents have framed Recruitment Rules for the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Vocational) in various Vocational Courses. In the year 2009, the Parliament amended the definition of the word 'employee' as definedin Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act of 1972, for short) with retrospective effect, from April 03, 1997, Pursuant thereto, the teachers were entitled to the Gratuity under the Act of 1972 from their employer w.ef. April 03, 1997. The petitioner continued to work as a Part Time Vocational Teacher with the respondents and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on March 26, 2020"Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 6 OA No.224/2023 4.3 Learned counsel for respondents submits that the amendment in the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 did not include 'Doctors' as employees. He draws attention of this Tribunal to paragraph 7 of judgment of Janardan Sharma (supra) which reads as follows:
"7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that the Teachers have been included within the definition of the word 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 in the year 2009 w.e.f. April 03, 1997. For all purposes, a teacher is entitled to gratuity. The Supreme Court has also in its judgment in the case of Birla Institute of Technology vs. The State of Jharkhand, (2019) 15 SCC 586, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Institute by relying upon the amendment, in the proceedings initiated by a teacher before appropriate authority for grant of gratuity under the Act of 1972. The Supreme Court has in paras 29 and 30 held as under:
"29. In other words, the teachers were brought within the purview of "employee" as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act by Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.
30. The effect of the amendment made in the Payment of Gratuity Act vide Amending Act No. 47 of 2009 on 31.12.2009 was two-fold. First, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ahmadabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association (supra) was no longer applicable against the W.P.(C)11154/2019 Page 4 teachers, as if not rendered, and Second, the teachers were held entitled to claim the amount of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act from their employer with effect from 03.04.1997."
4.4 Learned counsel for respondents submits that it has been categorically stated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the definition of word 'employee' includes 'Teachers'. The judgment of the High Court relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Birla Institute of Technology Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 15 SCC 586. He submits that there is no rule supporting payment of gratuity to contractual Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 7 OA No.224/2023 Doctors employed with the Respondents. The payment of gratuity will come from the public exchequer. Without any statutory provision, such money cannot be paid to the applicant.
5. Analysis 5.1 Definition of employee Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Definition clause as per Section 2(e) and (f), the terms "employee" and "employer" have been defined in the following manner:
"(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, 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;]
(f) "employer" means, in relation to any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop--
(i) belonging to, or under the control of, the Central Government or a State Government, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of employees, or where no person or authority has been so appointed, the head of the Ministry or the Department concerned,
(ii) belonging to, or under the control of, any local authority, the person appointed by such authority for the supervision and control of employees or where no person has been so appointed, the chief executive officer of the local authority,
(iii) in any other case, the person, who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, and where the said affairs are Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 8 OA No.224/2023 entrusted to any other person, whether called a manager, managing director or by any other name, such person;
(g) "factory" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)."
5.2 A plain reading of the definition clause shows that the term employee 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. The present Applicant was appointed on contractual basis in MB Hospital under the GNCT, Delhi, a State Government. The employees of the Central Government and GNCT of Delhi are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which has statutory provision of payment of gratuity to employees having certain years of qualifying service. Hence, the definition of employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not include the present applicant. Accordingly, the averments made by the learned counsel invoking this enactment as well as the judgment in support of such averments as detailed under his submission in Paragraph 3 are not applicable to the case at hand. 5.3 The learned counsel for the Respondent refers to the payment of Gratuity under Rule 50 (1) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which has already been reproduced under Paragraph 4.1. The Govt. employee is entitled for payment of gratuity if he has at least 5 years of qualifying service before Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 9 OA No.224/2023 his retirement. In the instant case, the present applicant on contractual service and his engagement was severed when he attained the age of 65. He was not "retired" from government service nor he got any pension. Section 2(o), the definition clause, of CCS (Pension) Rules states:
"`Pension' includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not include dearness relief;"
Hence, payment of Gratuity is linked to pensionary benefits. The present applicant has not earned "pension" from Government of NCT of Delhi. Hence, he is not entitled for payment of Gratuity.
5.4 The learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Janardan Sharma (supra) wherein the "teachers" were declared as employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly averred that in the year 2009, the Parliament amended the definition of "employee" to include teachers. Pursuant to this amendment, teachers were entitled for payment of gratuity. But he has averred that there is no such amendment to include "doctors" under the term employee in the definition clause. In this judgment paragraph 7 states that teachers have been included in the definition of "employees" under the Payment Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 10 OA No.224/2023 of Gratuity Act, 1972, but there is no specific finding in any court of law that employee also includes "doctors". 5.5 This Tribunal comes to the view that payment of gratuity to employees of Central or State Governments are covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. An employee is entitled for gratuity if he or she has completed 5 years qualifying service before retirement. If a person has not retired from government service, he/she is not entitled for payment of gratuity under the said Rules. The present applicant has not retired from government service, but his contractual engagement came to an end at the age of 65. Secondly, the applicant has failed to convince this Tribunal that "doctors" are included in the definition of "employees" under the definition clause under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, the present applicant is not entitled for payment of Gratuity under the said Act.
6. Conclusion 6.1 The present OA lacks merit and hence, it is dismissed. 6.2 No order as to costs.
6.3 Pending MA, if any, stand disposed of.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) 'SD' Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51d1ed688 256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode=110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90ccfe14b2 Dutt 2f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.09.12 17:45:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0