Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Usha Verma and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 18971, 21010 of 2022, Writ (A) Nos. 5588, 6271, 7771, 7780, 7783, 9695, 10540, 10928, 10932, 10939, 11086, 11629, 11702, 12051, 12065, 13800, 14043, 14359, 15528, 15781, 16328, 17864, 20563 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2024
Gratuity - Basic Education Department - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 1(3), 2(e), Government Orders dated 23.11.1994, 10.06.2002, and 04.02.2004 - The court discussed the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the relevant Government Orders in relation to the gratuity claims of retired or deceased employees of the Basic Education Department. The court highlighted the legal provisions, their interpretations, and their influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, retired or deceased employees of the Basic Education Department, sought relief for the payment of gratuity. However, their petitions lacked material pleadings and failed to disclose relevant Government Orders governing gratuity for teachers in the department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claims were not supported by adequate pleadings and that the payment of gratuity for teachers in the Basic Education Department was governed by specific Government Orders. As the petitioners did not plead to take benefit of the relevant Government Orders, the court held that they were not entitled to gratuity solely based on the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Issues: Lack of material pleadings, applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the influence of relevant Government Orders on gratuity claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of pleadings and the need for petitioners to approach the court with clean hands. It also highlighted the specific Government Orders governing the payment of gratuity for teachers in the Basic Education Department and the petitioners' failure to plead for the benefit of these orders.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of, and the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to gratuity solely based on the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court advised the petitioners to take available legal recourse to avail the benefit of the relevant Government Orders for payment of gratuity.
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e. petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.
2. Petitioners (retired employees or husband, father or mother of deceased employees), as the case may be, while working in Basic Education Department, have retired or died (before or after retirement) and period goes as old as 2002 to as recent as 2023. They have not raised any demand of gratuity for many years and only in 2022 and 2023, these writ petitions are filed seeking relief that concerned District Basic Education Officers be directed to release and pay the petitioners their respective amount of gratuity alongwith interest. Details of petitioners and relation with deceased employee, date of retirement/ date of death, age as on retirement/death, etc. are given hereinafter in the form of following chart:
| S. No. | W.P. No. | Name of Petitioner | Year of retirement/death | Age as on retirement/death |
| 1. | 18971/2022 | Smt. Usha Verma and Km. Kishwar Ara | 2014 and 2016 | 62 |
| 2. | 6271/2023 | Paras Nath Tiwari | 2015 | 62 |
| 3. | 10540/2023 | Dan Bahadur | 2010 | 60 |
| 4. | 10928/2023 | Prabhu Nath | 2007 | 62 |
| 5. | 10932/2023 | Ram Dular | 2009 | 62 |
| 6. | 10939/2023 | Chaitu Ram | 2011 | 62 |
| 7. | 11086/2023 | Shakeela Begum (wife of employee) | 2012 | 62Y 6M |
| 8. | 11629/2023 | Lal Bahadur Patel | 2023 | 62 |
| 9. | 11702/2023 | Ram Jiyawan | 2022 | 62 |
| 10. | 12051/2023 | Daya Shankar | 2006 | 62 |
| 11. | 12065/2023 | Grihraj | 2008 | 62 |
| 12. | 13800/2023 | Ramakaran | 2002 | 60 |
| 13. | 14043/2023 | Vimla Devi | 2020 | 62 |
| 14. | 14359/2023 | Ravinder Bansal (son of employee) | 2009 | 51 |
| 15. | 15528/2023 | Devamatiya (wife of employee) | 2014 | 61 |
| 16. | 15781/2023 | Asha Srivastava (wife of employee) | 2018 | 61 |
| 17. | 16328/2023 | Manorama Singh (daughter of employee) | 2007 | 61 |
| 18. | 17864/2023 | Smt. Shanti Devi (wife of employee) | 2006 | 62 |
| 19. | 20563/2023 | Smt. Kusma Devi (wife of employee) | 2022 | 62 |
| 20. | 5588/2023 | Bindra Prasad Patel | 2017 | 64 |
| 21. | 7771/2023 | Awadh Narayan Patel | 2018 | 62 |
| 22. | 7780/2023 | Mohan Lal | 2014 | 62 |
| 23. | 7783/2023 | Ram Nidhi | 2011 | 62 |
| 24. | 9695/2023 | Bhagwati Prasad Kushwaha | 2011 | 62 |
| 25. | 21010/2022 | Aslam Jainavi (Voluntary Retirement) | 2021 | 60 |
3. Petitioners have claimed aforesaid relief primarily on ground that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1972”) will be applicable to Teachers of Basic Schools. However, they have not disclosed that payment of gratuity for Teachers working in these Schools are presently governed by different Government Orders. Neither relevant Government Orders dated 23.11.1994, 10.06.2002 and 04.02.2004, were placed on record nor there was any averment in regard to their existence in writ petitions. The writ petitions are also silent about huge delay in claiming relief.
4. Despite aforesaid material shortcomings in pleadings, Sri Shoar Mohammad Khan, Sri Quazi Mohammad Akram and Sri Tawvab Ahmed Khan, Advocates for petitioners, proceeded to argue the case on merits that petitioners are employees under the definition of ‘employee’ as mentioned in Section 2(e) of Act, 1972. Learned counsel also referred Section 14 of Act, 1972 that it will override on all other enactments. It was also argued that there was no need to mention Government orders or to challenge
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of gratuity for teachers in the Basic Education Department is governed by specific Government Orders, and petitioners must plead f....
Voluntary retirement constitutes an option for gratuity eligibility, regardless of not opting to retire at the age of 60.
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.
Entitlement to gratuity for teachers retiring at 60 years is established by interpreting Government Orders and previous judgments, irrespective of retirement date and age options.
Service matter - Payment of a gratuity - Rule 5 of these Rules provided that a gratuity equal to six times pay last drawn by a teacher at time of his death would be payable provided he had put in not....
Teachers in basic institutions governed by state rules are not considered employees under the Gratuity Act, denying them gratuity benefits.
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.
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
