##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1500/2018 Smt. Satyawati Bhati

----Petitioner Versus

Pc Kishan ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Tiwari with

Mr. Akshay Tiwari Mr. Ravindra Goswami for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG

Mr. Mahendra Kumar Dave, Secretary, Vidhya Bharti School, present in

person

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

02/04/2026

1. Counsel for the respondent State submits that a meeting was convened on 25.03.2026 between the State Authorities, the representatives of the Institute and the employees. On that date, it was settled between the parties that the amount qua earned leaves has been paid. So far as the difference in the pay fixation amount is concerned, the same would be verified by the authorities and would be settled in the next meeting scheduled to be held in the month of May, 2026. So far as the payment of gratuity amount is concerned, it was observed that the same is

the liability of the Institute and is to be paid by it only.

2. Counsel appearing for the respondent Institute submits that as per the calculation made by the Institute, the complete gratuity amount has been paid to the employees. However, it has been admitted that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum as

directed vide order dated 27.02.2018, has not been paid.

(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 02:30:15 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:05:25 AM)

(2 of 4) [WCP-1500/2018]

3. Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to complete his

instructions regarding amount qua earned leaves.

4. So far as the gratuity amount is concerned, Counsel submits that only an amount of Rs.45,500/- was offered to the employees which they rightly declined. As per the Counsel, the gratuity amount is to be calculated in terms of Section 4(2) r/w the Explanation to the said provision of The Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1972’).

5. Counsel for the Institute submits that the gratuity amount has been calculated as per Clause 11 of The Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme of 1995’). He submits that order dated 27.02.2018 does not specify any manner/provision in terms of which the gratuity was to be calculated. Therefore, this Court in contempt jurisdiction, cannot go into the issue whether the gratuity amount has been calculated as per law or not. The same would be a subject matter of a fresh

writ, if any.

6. After hearing the Counsels and perusing Clause 11 of the Scheme of 1995, this Court is of the clear opinion that the same provides for determination of pensionable salary and does not speak about the determination of the gratuity amount. Therefore, the computation as made by respondent Institute is clearly not in

consonance with Section 4(2) of Act of 1972.

7. So far as the ground raised by Counsel for the respondent Institute to the effect that this Court, in contempt jurisdiction, cannot enlarge the scope by entering into the issue of computation of gratuity amount is concerned, order dated 27.02.2018 reflects that the petition as filed by the petitioners

(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 02:30:15 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 09:05:25 AM)

(3 of 4) [WCP-1500/2018]

was decided in terms and directions of judgment in the case of Gordhan Mal Singhvi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 5118/2008) and Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College; D.B. SAW No. 663/2015 (decided on 06.11.2015). A specific direction was given to the respondents to comply with the observations made in the case of Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College (supra). The operative part of

order dated 27.02.2018 read as under:-

“In view of the submissions made, which are not

disputed by learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in light of and with similar directions as in the case of Gordhan Mal Singhvi (supra) and law laid down in the case of Sh. Bh