The State of Chhattisgarh is not the employer of teachers in private aided educational institutions, and the liability for gratuity payments lies with the institutions, not the State.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the writ appellate jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (henceforth shall be referred to as, ‘Act of 2006’), the present batch of writ appeals has been preferred by the appellants/State of Chhattisgarh, questioning the common Judgment/Order dated 6.3.2020 by which the respective writ petitions filed by the respondents/ educational institutions & schools, have been allowed by learned Single Judge quashing the Order/Memo dated 7.6.2013 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh and holding the State Government liable to make payment of gratuity to the teachers retired on or after 3.4.1997 to 31.3.2013 [Liability for payment of gratuity w.e.f. 1.4.2013 has already been taken by the State of Chhattisgarh by the said Order/Memo dated 7.6.2013] branding the said Order to be manifest arbitrary and contrary to law.

Relevant facts, in brief:-

2. The respondents/educational institutions are registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973 and are receiving cent-precent grant-in-aid from the State Government as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978. On account of a legislative change in the definition of ‘employee’ defined under clause (e) of Section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (henceforth shall be referred to as, ‘Act of 1972’), it was amended by the Parliament by the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 (henceforth shall be referred to as, ‘the Amendment Act of 2009’) brought in force w.e.f. 3.4.1997 and consequently the educational institutions have been held responsible to pay gratuity w.e.f. 3.4.1997. The controlling authority, on the application of the teachers of the aided institutions, held that the educational institutions are liable to pay gratuity to the teachers retired after 3.4.1997, which was affirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal under Section 7 of the Act of 1972.

3. The respondents/educational institutions, in the batch of writ petitions (except in W.P.L. No.215/2016 out of which W.A. No.234/2022 has arisen) filed before the writ Court, questioned their liability to pay the gratuity on the ground of they being 100% aided educational institutions are not required to pay gratuity to the teachers who are under the deep and pervasive control of the State Government and further questioned the Order/Memo dated 7.6.2013 issued by the State Government fixing the cut-off date for payment of gratuity to the employees of 100% aided institutions and holding specifically that grant will be paid for the purpose of gratuity to those employees/ teachers who have retired after 1.4.2013.

4. The writ petition (W.P.L. No.227/2014) filed by St. Xavier’s H.S. School, challenging the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of the controlling authority, was dismissed and duly affirmed by Writ Appeal No.111/2016 reserving their right to file a fresh representation, which was also rejected by competent authority by order dated 2.5.2016 resulting in filing of W.P.L. No.215/2016 by the Xavier Institute, Surguja seeking only quashment of the impugned Order/Memo dated 7.6.2013 on the ground that the State Government having provided 100% grant-in-aid to their educational institution is responsible to make payment of gratuity to the employees irrespective of their date of retirement and the fixation of cut-off date covering the liability from 1.4.2013 is arbitrary and unreasonable. This is how the batch of writ appeals are before us for consideration.

Findings of the Writ Court:-

5. The learned Single Judge by impugned Judgment /Order dated 6.3.2020 allowed the said batch of writ petitions and quashed the Memo dated 7.6.2013 holding that the State Government is liable to pay gratuity to the teachers even if they had ret