Back
SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Finance Department, Dist. Raipur, C. G. – Appellant
Versus
President, Managing Committee, Lahari Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chirmiri, Dist. Koriya, C. G. – Respondent
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-p
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.
(1) Amendment to Section 2(e) and insertion of Section 13A to Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, with retrospective effect from 3rd April 1997 vide Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, cannot be categori....
Teachers in basic institutions governed by state rules are not considered employees under the Gratuity Act, denying them gratuity benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the teacher was entitled to claim gratuity under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Repealing Act did not affect her right to do so.
The court held that the petitioner-institution is liable to pay gratuity and leave encashment to respondent-employees for their service period, as per the applicable rules and acts.
The court established that the definition of 'employee' under the Payment of Gratuity Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to gratuity despite state claims of exclusion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
