Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3033
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MOHD RAIS QADRI – Appellant
Versus
GOVIND BALLABH PANT AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSIT – Respondent
WPSS 2525 / 2024
SL. N o.
D a t e
Office N ot e s, r e por t s, or de r s or pr oce e dings or dir e ct ions a nd Re gist r a r ’s or de r w it h Signa t ur e s
COURT’S OR JUD GE’S ORD ERS
4 6 5 WPSS No. 2525 of 2024 Wit h WPSS No. 419 of 2023 WPSS No. 522 of 2023 WPSS No. 2191 of 2023 WPSS No. 2342 of 2023 WPSS No. 189 of 2024 WPSS No. 874 of 2024 H on’ble M a noj Kum a r Tiw a r i, J 1. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi & Mr. Suhal A. Siddiqui, Advocat es for t he pet it ioners. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deput y 2. Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. 3. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal & Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocat es for t he respondent- Universit y. Since com m on quest ions of fact and . law are involved in t hese pet it ions, t herefore, t hese pet it ions are clubbed t oget her and decided by t his com m on j udgm ent . However, for t he sake of brevit y and convenience, fact s of WPSS No. 2525 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed. . Pet it ioner was a non- t eaching em ployee of Govind Ballabh Pant Agricult ure and Technology Universit y, who ret ired from t he post of Junior Engineer, on 31.01.2002; grat uit y has been denied t o him only on t he ground t hat he had opt ed t o ret ire at t he age of 60 years. . Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat alt hough init ially, t here were t wo cat egories of em ployee in Universit y, nam ely, ( i) t hose who had opt ed t o ret ire at t he age of 58 years, &
8 7 ( ii) t hose who had opt ed t o ret ire at t he age of 60 years, and as per t he t hen prevailing Governm ent Orders, grat uit y was payable only t o first cat egory of em ployees, nam ely, who had opt ed t o ret ire at t he age of 58 years. He furt her subm it s t hat subsequent ly, t he age of superannuat ion of all Universit y em ployees becam e 60 years, irrespect ive of opt ion exercised by t hem , t herefore, t he classificat ion of em ployees based on t heir opt ion becam e redundant . He subm it s t hat t his issue was decided in favour of sim ilarly sit uat e em ployees by coordinat e Bench of t his Court in WPMS No. 395 of 2017, which was affirm ed upt o Hon’ble Suprem e Court . He, t herefore, subm it s t hat in view of t he said j udgm ent rendered by coordinat e Bench, pet it ioner is also ent it led t o grat uit y. Learned St at e Counsel, however, . subm it s t hat in WPMS No. 395 of 2017 & ot her connect ed pet it ions, coordinat e Bench was considering challenge t hrown by t he Universit y t o t he order passed by Cont rolling Aut horit y under Paym ent of Grat uit y Act , 1972. He subm it s t hat since em ployees had approached t he Cont rolling Aut horit y under t he Paym ent of Grat uit y Act and Cont rolling Aut horit y had allowed t heir applicat ions for release of grat uit y and pet it ioners have direct ly approached t his Court , wit hout approaching Cont rolling Aut horit y, t herefore, pet it ioners are not ent it led t o any relief in t his writ pet it ion. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners . subm it s t hat pet it ioners are being denied grat uit y only on t he ground t hat t hey had opt ed for 58 years of age of ret irem ent and t his classificat ion, based on opt ion
9 regarding age on superannuat ion, has been oblit erat ed by virt ue of j udgm ent rendered by coordinat e Bench, t herefore, St at e Governm ent be direct ed t o exam ine t he claim of t he pet it ioners for grat uit y. Wit hout expressing any opinion on .
