Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSS No. 2525 of 2024

With

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

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi & Mr. Suhal A.

Siddiqui, Advocates for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal & Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocates for the respondent-

University.

4. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 2525 of 2024 alone are being

considered and discussed.

5. Petitioner was a non-teaching employee of Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University, who retired from the post of Junior Engineer, on 31.01.2002; gratuity has been denied to him only on the ground that he had opted to retire at the age of

60 years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although initially, there were two categories of employee in University, namely, (i) those who had opted to retire at the age of 58 years, &

(ii) those who had opted to retire at the age of 60 years, and as per the then prevailing Government Orders, gratuity was payable only to first category of employees, namely, who had opted to retire at the age of 58 years. He further submits that subsequently, the age of superannuation of all University employees became 60 years, irrespective of option exercised by them, therefore, the classification of employees based on their option became redundant. He submits that this issue was decided in favour of similarly situate employees by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 395 of 2017, which was affirmed upto Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submits that in view of the said judgment rendered by coordinate Bench, petitioner is also entitled to gratuity.

7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that in WPMS No. 395 of 2017 & other connected petitions, coordinate Bench was considering challenge thrown by the University to the order passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He submits that since employees had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Controlling Authority had allowed their applications for release of gratuity and petitioners have directly approached this Court, without approaching Controlling Authority, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are being denied gratuity only on the ground that they had opted for 58 years of age of retirement and this classification, based on option