Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2879 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 292 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ayush Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Tripathi Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

2. Petition has been filed challenging Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection dated 02.12.2024. Further prayer for payment of gratuity to petitioner alongwith interest from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment in terms of judgment and order passed by this Court dated 01.10.2024 in Writ-A No.5724 of 2024 and other connected matters as well as judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.23788 of 2014 has been sought.

3. In terms of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly judgment rendered in Writ-A No.5724 of 2024, University College Retired Teachers Welfare Association, Lucknow and Another versus State of U.P. and Others, it appears that although the Government Orders under challenge in the aforesaid petitions and the present one are different but pertain to same cause of action.

4. The Government Order under challenge as well as the Government Order dated 30.03.1983 and 04.02.2004, which was under challenge in Writ-A No.5724 of 2024 pertains to denial of gratuity to such teachers who opted to continue in service after prescribed age of superannuation. The Government Orders provided that such gratuity would be payable only to those teachers who opted to retire at the age of 58 years and upon whom provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were made applicable but was denied to those who continued in service up to the age of 60 years, ostensibly for the reason that in such cases, 2 years additional service benefits were opted for. 5. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:-

"Question No. 1-

16. Whether the petitioners would be covered under definition of the term 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 and would now be entitled for gratuity?

Question No. 2-

17. Whether, even if covered under the aforesaid definition, they are liable to be excluded in terms of option already availed of under Government Order dated 30.03.1983 upon applicability of principles of acquiescence/

estoppel?

27. From a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is thus evident that subsequent to the Government Order dated 30.03.1983, the situation underwent a sea change with amendment being incorporated in Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972, whereunder teachers as a class were brought under definition of the term 'employee".

30. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is discernible that no distinction being indicated in the amendment to Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972 pertaining to teachers of affiliated Colleges or Primary and other Schools, no such distinction as is being advocated by learned counsel for opposite parties can be construed. A perusal of the Amending Act will make it evident that teachers as a class have been brought under the definition of 'employee' by means of the Amending Act and would form a single class irrespective of whether they belong to Primary, Secondary or Degree Colleges etc.

31. It is also noticeable that since the amendment incorporated in the Act of 1972 has been notified with effect from 03.04.1997, it has been made retrospective in nature and would cover all such teachers who are covered by the aforesaid Amending Act of 2009.

33. Considering aforesaid facts and discussions, the question no.1 is answered in favour of petitioners that they would be covered in the definition of 'employee' under S