Order on Board

08 . 04.2025

1. Office objection is ignored.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the circular dated

07.06.2013 and orders passed by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the petitioners have been directed to make payment of gratuity to its employees, who got retired prior to

31.03.2013.

3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent No. 4 and other employees got retired from services prior to 31.03.2013 and the circular was issued by the State Government afterwards, therefore, the petitioners are not liable to make payment of gratuity to the private respondents and other similarly situated employees. He would further submit that the circular cannot be given retrospective effect. He would also submit that the controlling authority without taking into consideration the above aspect of the matter passed the order against the society. He would pray to quash the circular and orders passed by the controlling authority.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. The President, Managing Committee, Lahari Multipurpose Higher Secondary School passed in WA No. 194 of 2021 and other connected matters has already decided this issue.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

6. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of The President, Managing Committee, Lahari Multipurpose Higher Secondary School (supra) has categorically held that the State of Chhattisgarh, by Memo dated 7.6.2013, as a matter of policy, took a decision and volunteered to pay grant which will be utilized for the purpose of gratuity to the employees/teachers who have retired after 1.4.2013, meaning thereby the gratuity for the period from 3.4.1997 to 31.3.2013 will be payable by the private unaided educational institutions from their own funds. The relevant paras 42 & 43 read as under:-

“42. As already noticed, in consonance with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers’ Association (supra), the Amendment Act of 2009 brought with retrospective effect from 3.4.1997 and the definition of ‘employee’ was amended to cover up the teachers also. The teachers retired on or after 3.4.1997 as such became entitled for payment of gratuity in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 1972, which led to filing of the application against the private educational institutions before the controlling authority under the Act of 1972 who on such application ordered for payment of gratuity to the employees, which was affirmed by the appellate authority in the appeal under Section 7 of the said Act and thereafter the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh has taken a considered policy decision to make payment of gratuity in shape of grant to the employees who have superannuated after 1.4.2013. Thus, the State of Chhattisgarh, by Memo dated 7.6.2013, as a matter of policy, took a decision and volunteered to pay grant which will be utilized for the purpose of gratuity to the employees/teachers who have retired after 1.4.2013, meaning thereby the gratuity for the period from 3.4.1997 to 31.3.2013 will be payable by the private unaided educational institutions from their own funds.

43. As noticed herein above, the amended definition of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 read with Section 13A of the Amendment Act of 2009 was sought to be challenged by the private educational institutions unsuccessfully before the High Courts and thereafter before the Supreme Court in the matter of Independent Schools’ Federation of India (Regd.) (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the issue and dismissed the challenge so made and held that the Amendment Act of 2009 amending the definition of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1