Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Edu Lko. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 3180 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19(1)(f) , 31(1) and 300-A - Service Law - Age of superannuation - Voluntary Retirement - Gratuity - Whether benefit of gratuity and pension is a property of petitioners and whether, it can be denied to petitioners by an administrative order in violation of Constitutional Rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India - Held, gratuity are proposed to be taken away by an executive order dated, as referred above, is neither permissible nor can be done in view of judgments as quoted above and squarely applicable to facts of present case, as such, there is a clear violation of Article 300-A of Constitution of India - State Government has itself granted benefits of gratuity to the doctors working in Provincial Health Services even when age of such doctors were increased from 60 to 62 years and were paid salaries for extended period, as such, to that extent, there is a clear violation of Article 14 also - Respondents are directed to pay gratuity to both petitioners to which they are entitled ignoring Government Order dated within a period of three months from date of production of a certified copy of this order - petition allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The right to pension and gratuity is recognized as a property right of the petitioners, protected under the constitutional provisions, specifically under Article 300-A, which prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law (!) (!) .
Executive orders or administrative instructions that do not have statutory backing cannot be used to deny or withhold pension and gratuity, as these benefits are not mere gratuities but accrued rights arising from long-standing service (!) (!) (!) .
The entitlement to pension and gratuity is governed by statutory rules, which create vested rights. Any deprivation of these rights must be in accordance with law, and administrative orders alone are insufficient to deny such benefits (!) (!) .
The benefit of pension and gratuity cannot be withdrawn or denied through executive instructions or administrative circulars that lack statutory authority, as doing so would violate constitutional protections (!) (!) .
The right to receive pension and gratuity is also protected under the broader constitutional guarantee of socio-economic justice, and these are not grants of grace but earned rights based on service (!) (!) .
Denial of gratuity based solely on continued service beyond the retirement age, without a statutory provision or lawful authority, constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and principles of equality and non-arbitrariness (!) (!) .
The State's actions in denying gratuity to the petitioners, despite the absence of any misconduct or violation of rules, and based solely on executive orders, are unlawful and unconstitutional (!) (!) .
The petitioners are entitled to the payment of gratuity and the decision regarding pension commutation must be made within a specified timeframe, with interest payable on the delayed gratuity amount from the date of retirement (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that pension and gratuity are earned rights, not discretionary benefits, and any attempt to deny them without following statutory procedures or law violates constitutional protections (!) (!) .
The order directs the respondents to pay the gratuity amounts owed to the petitioners within three months of the order's certified copy, along with interest, and to decide on pension commutation applications within the same period (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Despite stop order passed on 23.05.2023 granting four weeks' and no more time to file counter affidavit, the State has chosen not to file the counter affidavit. The instructions have been produced by the learned Standing Counsel indicating the reasons, as to why, the claim of the gratuity is not being paid to the petitioners. The said instructions are taken on record and the matter is decided finally as the issue hinges upon the interpretation of legal grounds, there being no dispute on facts.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners no.1 and 2 were appointed in the Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur and in the Medical College, Meerut respectively and continued to serve till attaining the age of superannuation, however, the State Government with a view to tide over the requirement of super specialty doctors, issued a Government Order dated 06.02.2015 increasing the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years, a copy whereof has been filed as (Annexure-7) to the writ petition. It appears from the record that on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, the petitioner no.2 applied for voluntary retirement, however, no orders were passed and both the petitioners, in the absence of any order on the voluntary retirement application of petitioner no.2, continued to serve till they attained the age of 65 years. After the retirement, the grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been paid the death-cum-retirement gratuity, to which, they are entitled as well as the benefit of commutation of pension. It bears from record that a doctor similarly placed who was denied the said benefit had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.281 of 2022 (Dr. Suneel Kumar Garg vs State of U.P. and others), which was disposed off, vide order dated 10.02.2022, directing the respondents State Government to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner of Writ-A No.281 of 2022. In response to the said directions, an order came to be passed on 13.12.2022 in respect of the said petitioner of Writ-A No.281 of 2022 denying the benefits of payment of gratuity to him. In the order dated 13.12.2022, the reasons recorded for denying the said benefits are contained in paragraph 3 of the said order noticing that it came to the knowledge of the authority that in similar circumstances in respect of the teachers working with Basic Shiksha, Madhyamik Shiksha, High Education and Technical Education where the age of retirement was extended but the gratuity is not being paid to the said persons and drawing parallel from that, the petitioners, whose services were extended from 60 years to 65 years also do not appear to be entitled for payment of gratuity. The said order further records that the petitioners were will within their rights to have opted for voluntary retirement despite knowing their rights, continued to work till 65, thus they were not entitled for gratuity. Based upon the said reasoning, the representation of the petitioner Dr. Suneel Kumar Garg stood rejected.
4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner Gaurav Mehrotra is that the petitioners are similarly situated as Dr. Suneel Kumar Garg, whose representation for payment of gratuity was rejected. The reasoning recorded for non-payment of the gratuity would squarely apply to the petitioner no.2 and partly on the petitioner no.1 and, thus, the present petition has been filed seeking the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity and the benefit of commutation of pension and that this Court may decide the issue as the stand of the State is now clear.
5. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the entitlement of the death-cum-retirement gratuity and commutation of pension flow in favour of the petitioners in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'th
Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld without proper proceedings and findings of misconduct; Rule 43(c) requires adherence to principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : It is clear like a noon day that the retiral dues of an employee like petitioner cannot be allowed to withhold because the documents were not received by any department from other depa....
Pension is a constitutional right and cannot be withheld without lawful authority; delays in payment warrant interest.
The right to receive pension and gratuity is recognized as a property and cannot be deprived except by having recourse to law in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The power of the S....
The right to receive pension and gratuity is recognized as a right in 'property' and cannot be taken away without the due process of law.
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
