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.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Since all these writ petitions involve the same controversy, therefore, all are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of brevity, the facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.1846 of 2022, “Nawal Kishore Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, are taken for consideration of the controversy.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to grant the entire amount of gratuity of the petitioner from the date of his superannuation, i.e. 30.06.2003 till the date of actual payment, and the interest is also claimed on the amount of said gratuity @10% per annum from the date of superannuation of the petitioner till the date of actual payment.

3. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary detail, are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) (Physics) with respondent no.4-Uday Raj Hindu Inter College, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Institution”). It is pertinent to mention that the said institution is a private aided institution in the grant-in-aid with the respondent-State. The respondent-Department invited options from the teachers regarding their date of retirement on superannuation at the age of 58 years or 60 years, and the petitioner had given option of his retirement on superannuation at the age of 60 years.

4. The petitioner retired on superannuation at the age of 60 years on 30.06.2003 from the said institution after satisfactory service. All the retiral dues of the petitioner were paid by the respondents, but for the gratuity, which according to the petitioner, he was entitled to get. The petitioner made several requests, both oral and in writing, to the respondents to release the gratuity, but the same has not been paid constraining the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2022.

5. The respondent-State filed its counter-affidavit, and in the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that pursuant to the Government Order No.4026/12-08-400 (19)/84, dated 19th December, 1984, the options were invited from the teachers who have been appointed prior to 01.01.1984 as to whether they wish to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, or 60 years in a prescribed format.

6. It is the case of the respondent-State that those who had given option of retirement age of 58 years were entitled for benefit of pension, family pension, general provident fund and gratuity in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order. It is the further case of the respondent-State that the employees who were appointed prior to 01.01.1984, and had given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, shall not be entitled to the benefit of gratuity.

7. It is also the case of the respondent-State, as per the counter-affidavit, that by virtue of Government Order No.17-xxvii (7)v-vk-/2005, dated 25th September, 2005, only those teachers who were due to retire on 30.06.2005, and had submitted their option for retirement at the age of 58 years, such teachers will now be retired at the age of 60 years on superannuation, and they shall be paid gratuity. Since the petitioner retired prior to 30.06.2005, he will not be entitled to get the benefit of gratuity in view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 25th September, 2005.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid controversy regarding the payment of gratuity to such teachers, who have initially exercised their option for retirement on superannuation at the age of 60 years, would be entitled to get the gratuity, irrespective of the fact as to whether they have exercised their option for retirement at the age of 58 years or 60 years, has been set to rest by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.11.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.395 of 2017 (M/S), “G.B. Pant University vs. Appellate Authority & others” and b