JUDGMENT :

1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62286 of 2009 has been brought by the District Education Officer, Hamirpur against an order of the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur Region, Kanpur, dated 26.09.2009 passed in P.G. Case no.74 of 2007. By the said order, the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the Authority) has ordered the petitioner to pay the second respondent-employee gratuity in the sum of Rs.1,48,050/-in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act), instead of Section 9(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (for the short, the Act of 1972) and Service Rules framed thereunder, governing entitlement to post retiral benefits for the second respondent-employee, a Head Clerk employed with the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Nagar Kshetra Maudaha, District Hamirpur.

2. Connected Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9831 of 2019 has been filed by the employee, Mohammad Ahmad, who is the second respondent in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62286 of 2009, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Authority to issue a recovery certificate against the District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur, who is the second respondent in this petition and the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62286 of 2009, in compliance of the order dated 26.09.2009 passed in P.G. Case no.74 of 2007, determining the employee's entitlement to gratuity under the Act as detailed hereinabove.

3. Since both the writ petitions relate to validity of the order dated 26.09.2009 passed by the Authority under the Act, one assailing its validity and the other seeking its enforcement, the two petitions have been connected and heard together, with Writ – C No.62286 of 2009 being treated as the leading petition.

4. Heard Sri Kunal Shah holding brief of Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur and Ms. Fasiha Fatma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-employee in Writ – C No.62286 of 2009; and, Sri Ambika Prasad Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-employee and Sri Kunal Shah holding brief of Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur in Writ – C No.9831 of 2019.

5. Parties have exchanged affidavits in the leading case and by consent of learned counsel appearing for both sides, the two petitions have proceeded to hearing.

6. The facts giving rise to the present petition are set out bearing reference to the leading case. It is the case of the petitioner, District Basic Education Officer that the respondent-employee was initially appointed on 01.11.1965 as Jalkal Store Keeper with the Nagar Palika, Maudaha, District Hamirpur. He was promoted on 21.12.1970 as Head Clerk in the said Nagar Palika, and continued as such until 31st July, 1972. Upon constitution of the Board of Basic Education on 01.08.1972, the second respondent-employee was absorbed in the services of the Board of Basic Education and appointed as In-charge Officer, Shiksha, Nagar Kshetra, Maudaha, Hamirpur working under the immediate control of the District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur. Admittedly, the date of birth of the second respondent-employee entered in his service book is 10.08.1940. He, therefore, attained the age of superannuation upon turning 60, and retired from service of the Board of Basic Education on 31.08.2000. According to the petitioner, on 06.09.2001, the Regional Assistant Joint Director of Education (Basic), Jhansi, described as the Competent Authority in the matter, passed an order sanctioning pension to the second respondent-employee. The said pension payment order has been passed in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and is addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, Hamirpur. It indicates the date of commencement of entitl