Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J.
State of M. P. & Others v. Shivnath Singh Kushwah & Others
Writ Petitions No. 31272 of 2024 and 31281 of 2024 (Gwalior); Decided on 6.5.2025
(1) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- S. 2(e) -- “employee” -- persons holding post under State Government would be exempt from the term “employee” only if they are governed by any other Act or Rules providing for payment of gratuity. [Paras 10 & 11]
(2) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- Rr. 2(g) and 44 -- M. P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 -- R. 18(2) -- applicability of Pension Rules, 1976 -- respondent No. 1 appointed in service of State Government as Shiksha Karmi -- absorbed in service of State Government in accordance with Rules of 2018 -- not covered under Pension Rules, 1976. [Para 15]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- S. 7(7) -- maintainability of writ petition -- bar of alternative remedy -- State Government wants to deny benefit of gratuity by placing reliance on Rules which, if accepted, would create a right to employee to claim pension -- therefore, despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 7(7), there being a legal and jurisdictional issue involved, petition heard on merits without relegating petitioner to alternative remedy of appeal. [Paras 16 & 17]
(4) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- S. 4 -- M. P. School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Service Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 -- R. 18(2) -- M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 -- Rr. 44, 3(p) and 13(2) -- liability to pay gratuity -- applicability of exclusion clause in terms of R. 44(1) of Pension Rules, 1976 -- Shiksha Karmis initially appointed in panchayat in Adhyapak Cadre in 2008 -- absorbed in School Education Department in 2018 -- not covered under Pension Rules, 1976 -- on becoming regular employee of Jila Panchayat, respondent No. 1 became subject to service conditions of Jila Panchayat -- became entitled for counting of his services for purpose of gratuity from date of initial appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak/Shiksha Karmi and further to be covered under Contributory Pension Scheme or National Pension Scheme -- nothing in R. 18(2) to deny benefit of gratuity to respondent No. 1 by calculating his services from date of initial appointment as Shiksha Karmi/Samvida Shala Shikshak till his superannuation after absorption in accordance with Rules of 2018 -- previous rules would continue to apply -- employees would continue to be covered under Gratuity Act as well as Provident Funds Scheme as applicable to regular employees of Jila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat -- respondent No. 1 is entitled to gratuity -- clarified that right of respondent No. 1 to claim benefit of contributory provident fund shall not be affected and shall remain intact. W. A. No. 752 of 2020 decided on 28.2.2025, W. A. No. 2358 of 2024 and 2024 (2) JLJ 101 relied on. (2022) 11 SCC 436 distinguished. W. P. No. 14554 of 2015 decided on 26.11.2015 affirmed in Civil Appeals No. 10266-10268 of 2018 and (1994) 1 SCC 9 referred to. [Paras 27, 28, 30, 34, 39 to 42]
¼1½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 2¼³½ & ^^deZpkjh** & jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu in /kkj.k djus okys O;fä dsoy rc in ^^deZpkjh** ls eqä gksaxs tc og minku dh O;oLFkk djus okys fdlh vU; vf/kfu;e ;k fu;e ls 'kkflr gksaA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼e-Á-½ & fu- 2¼N½ rFkk 44 & e-ç- jkT; Ldwy f'k{kk lsok ¼'kS{kf.kd laoxZ½ lsok 'krsZ ,oa HkrhZ fu;e] 2018 & fu- 18¼2½ & isU'ku fu;e] 1976 ykxw gksuk & çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 jkT; ljdkj dh lsok esa f'k{kk dehZ ds :i esa fu;qDr & jkT; ljdkj lu~ 2018 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj dh lsok esa vkesfyr & isU'ku fu;e] 1976 ls vkPNkfnr ughaA ¼iSjk 15½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 7¼7½ & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dk otZu & jkT; ljdkj mu fu;eksa dk voyac ysdj minku ds Qk;ns ls oafpr djuk pkgrh gS ftUgsa ;fn Lohdkj fd;k x;k rks deZpkjh dks isU'ku dk nkok djus dk vf/kdkj l`ftr gks tk,xk & vr% /kkjk 7¼7½ ds v/khu vihy ds vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk ds ckotwn] fof/kd vkSj vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh fook|d varoZfyr gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dks vihy ds vkuqdfYid mipkj ds fy, ykSVk, fcuk ;kfpdk dh xq.kkxq.k ij lquokbZ dh xbZA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
¼4½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 4 & e-ç- jkT; Ldwy f'k{kk lsok ¼'kS{kf.kd laoxZ½ lsok 'krsZ ,oa HkrhZ fu;e] 2018 & fu- 18¼2½ & e-ç- flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 & fu- 44] 3¼r½ rFkk 13¼2½ & minku ds lank; dk nkf;Ro & isU'ku fu;e] 1976 ds fu- 44¼1½ ds fuca/kukuqlkj viotZu [kaM ykxw gksuk & vkjaHk esa lu~ 2008 esa v/;kid laoxZ esa iapk;r esa fu;qä f'k{kk dehZx.k & lu~ 2018 esa Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx esa vkesfyr & isU'ku fu;e] 1976 ls vkPNkfnr ugha & ftyk iapk;r dk fu;fer deZpkjh cuus ds mijkar çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 ftyk iapk;r dh lsok 'krksZ ds v/;/khu gks x;k & minku ds ç;kstu ds fy, lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd@f'k{kk dehZ ds :i esa vkjafHkd fu;qfä ds fnukad ls lsok dh lax.kk dk gdnkj gks x;k rFkk vfHknk;h isU'ku ;kstuk ;k jk"Vªh; isU'ku ;kstuk ls vkPNkfnr gksus dk Hkh gdnkj gks x;k & fu- 18¼2½ esa ,slk dqN ugha ftlls lu~ 2018 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vkesyu ds mijkar f'k{kk dehZ@lafonk 'kkyk f'k{kd ds :i esa vkjafHkd fu;qfä ds fnukad ls vf/kof"kZrk rd mldh lsok dh lax.kuk dj çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 dks minku ds Qk;ns oafpr fd;k tk lds & iwoZrj fu;e ykxw jgsaxs & deZpkjhx.k minku vf/kfu;e ds lkFk gh ftyk iapk;r vkSj tuin iapk;r ds fu;fer deZpkjhx.k dks ykxw Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk ls vkPNkfnr cus jgsaxs & çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 minku dk gdnkj gS & Li"V fd;k x;k fd vfHknk;h Hkfo"; fufèk ds Qk;ns dk nkok djus dk çR;FkhZ Øekad 1 dk vf/kdkj çHkkfor ugha gksxk rFkk v{kq..k jgsxkA fjV vihy Øekad 752 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 28-2-2025- fjV vihy Øekad 2358 lu~ 2024 rFkk 2024 ¼2½ ts,yts 101 voyafcrA ¼2022½ 11 ,llhlh 436 çHksfnrA flfoy vihysa Ø- 10266&10268 lu~ 2018 esa vfHkiq"V fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 14554 lu~ 2015 fu.khZr fnukad 26-11-2015 rFkk ¼1994½ 1 ,llhlh 9 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 27] 28] 30] 34] 39 ls 42½
ORDER
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner/State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries being aggrieved by the Order dated 3.9.2024 passed by the Controlling authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 thereby allowing the claim of the respondent No.1 to get Gratuity on account of services rendered as Shiksha Karmi Grade II and thereafter, as Adhyapak and then as Madhyamik Shikshak. Since the issues arising in both the matters are similar, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.31272/2024.
2. The Controlling Authority has held the respondent No.1 entitled to get Gratuity of Rs.6,92,289/- alongwith interest Rs. 3,12,478/- i.e, total Rs.10,04,767/- with future interest till the date of payment. The said Order has been assailed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries stating that the State Govt. is not liable to pay Gratuity to the respondent No.1.
3. Shri Ravindra Dixit, learned Government Advocate has vehemently argued that the respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an employee in terms of section 2 (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 nor the petitioners (State Govt.) cannot be said to be employer in terms of section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1972). It is further argued that the payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to the employees employed by the State Govt. or the Central Govt. or that the said Act would not apply to the Petitioners and therefore, the Order passed by the Controlling Authority is totally devoid of jurisdiction and therefore, the petitioners are not liable to be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of appeal in terms of section 7 (7) of the Act of 1972.
4. To elaborate the contentions, the learned Government Advocate has argued that initially, teachers used to be appointed by the Department of School Education in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, from the year 1996-97, the State Govt. set up a new procedure for appointment of teachers and in accordance with such process, the Shiksha Karmis were appointed in Panchayats as well as in Urban local bodies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. For Panchayats in rural areas, the Rules were framed known as M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 and the Petitioner was appointed in accordance with said Rules of 1997.
5. It is contended that thereafter, the mode of recruitment was further modified and in place of Shiksha Karmi Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, the Rules known as M.P. Panchayat Sanvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules 2001 were framed which were then superseded by M.P. Panchayat Sanvida Shala Shikshak (Employment and Conditions of Contract) Rules 2005 and the teachers appointed from 2001 onwards were given the nomenclature of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I, Grade II or Grade III in the rural areas as they were appointed by Panchayats and in the urban areas they were appointed by the urban local bodies. Thereafter, these teachers were absorbed in Adhyapak Cadre which was separately framed for the teachers working in Panchayats and the teachers working in urban local bodies and separate Rules were framed in the year 2008.
6. It is argued that in the year 2018, the State Govt. came out with the Rules known as M.P. School Education Service (Teaching cadre) Conditions and Recruitment Rules, 2018 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Rules 2018) and as per Rule 18(2) of the said Rules, the teachers working in Panchayats and urban local bodies were given an option to migrate to service of the State Govt. in Department of School Education. The respondent No.1 opted to migrate to service of the State Govt. and therefore, as per the specific language of Rule 18(2), the respondent No.1 would not be entitled to count the past services for Gratuity or any other benefit. Therefore, since the respondent No.1 has
Teachers in basic institutions governed by state rules are not considered employees under the Gratuity Act, denying them gratuity benefits.
State government employees are excluded from the Payment of Gratuity Act, and their gratuity entitlement is regulated by separate Pension Rules, confirming a ceiling limit of Rs. 4 lakh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to all employees, including daily wage employees, and entitles them to gratuity for their entire ser....
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.
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.
Salary – Leave encashment is part of salary – In present case, management establishment was recipient of 70% aid, in form of grant – State cannot shrug its responsibility to shoulder its part of resp....
The Gratuity Act provides overriding rights for gratuity claims that cannot be denied unless specifically exempted by law, even when alternative welfare benefits exist.
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
