Back
2022 Supreme(Megh) 131
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, J.
K.P. Mohanta - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 2/2022
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Mr. A. Khan, Adv with Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R. Gurung, GA, for the Respondent
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that the conditions and benefits of a gratuity scheme must be considered as a whole, and the right to receive gratuity under the Act of 1972 cannot be inhibited or impeded by any other enactment.
Headnote:
Gratuity - Employment Dispute - Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985 - Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a lecturer in a college, sought gratuity upon resignation, which was denied based on the Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985. The appellant challenged this denial under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's resignation, though perceived as 'technical', was voluntary and fell within the exclusion clause of the Scheme, thus denying the gratuity. The court also rejected the appellant's argument based on Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement to gratuity upon resignation under the Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985, and the applicability of Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant's resignation fell within the exclusion clause of the Scheme, and the appellant could not directly trace the right to receive gratuity under the Act of 1972, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - This is a hopeless appeal where the writ petitioner's contentions have no legs to stand on. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of December 5, 2019, dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining of the refusal by the State or the fourth respondent college to pay the gratuity due to the appellant.
2. The facts are succinctly recorded in the impugned judgment. The appellant joined the fourth respondent college as a lecturer in Philosophy in July, 1984 and he was confirmed in such post in September, 1986. The appellant continued with the college till the middle of 2009, and in due course, gained seniority and the senior or selection grade of pay made applicable to the college. On May 4, 2009, the appellant informed the college that he intended to join the Central University of Jharkhand as the Deputy Registrar and requested the college to allow him to retain his job there on lien.
3. The college granted the appellant the leave as sought and on July 8, 2009, requested the Director of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Meghalaya to grant lien to the writ petitioner for a period of one year. Such lien was granted for a year by an order dated July 30, 2009 with effect from May 10, 2009.
4. The appellant was appointed as the Deputy Registrar in the Central University of Jharkhand on March 17, 2010 and, by a letter of March 24, 2010, he requested the respondent college to extend his lien for a further period of two years. The college replied by indicating certain conditions that would be imposed; and a further period of two years of lien was granted with effect from May 10, 2010 upon due sanction thereof by the State.
5. By his letter dated April 10, 2012 addressed to the respondent college, the appellant requested the termination of his lien with effect from May 10, 2012 and also prayed for the release of his gratuity along with other benefits. The appellant submitted an application to the respondent college on September 10, 2012 to the effect that his letter of April 10, 2012 be treated as 'technical resignation'.
6. The college duly forwarded the application to the Director of Higher and Technical Education and also processed the appellant's application for payment of gratuity and forwarded the same to the State. By a letter dated February 28, 2014, the State informed the relevant college that in terms of the Meghalaya Aided College Employees Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Scheme, 1985, an employee who resigns from service on his own volition is not entitled to any benefit under the Scheme. This was communicated by the college to the appellant by its letter of February 28, 2014. This decision to deny the gratuity that the appellant perceived to be his right was challenged by way of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ court held that since the appellant was covered by the Scheme, notwithstanding the appellant herein perceiving his resignation to be 'technical', it was a resignation on the volition of the appellant nonetheless, and was squarely covered by clause 7(d) of the said Scheme of 1985.
8. In addition to the case made out before the writ court, the appellant here submits that in view of Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the denial of the gratuity that was due to the writ petitioner upon the writ petitioner rendering service for the qualifying period was illegal and a writ in the nature of mandamus should issue.
9. The writ petitioner is employed in a private college though such college is partly funded by the Government to the extent of the payment of salaries and benefits to its employees and the like, particularly to teachers. It is not incumbent, under any law or notification under any statute, for a private college to compulsorily pay gratuity to its employees. There is no notification in such regard that the appellant relies on.
10. Indeed, implicit in the a
