Gratuity for UP Basic Education Teachers Governed by Government Orders, Not Solely by Gratuity Act: Allahabad High Court - 2024-02-06

Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Clarifies: Gratuity for Basic Education Teachers in UP Subject to Government Orders, Not Solely Gratuity Act

Allahabad, February 6, 2024 – The Allahabad High Court recently addressed a batch of writ petitions concerning the payment of gratuity to retired and deceased employees of the Basic Education Department in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Saurabh ShyamShamshery , presiding over Court No. 36, delivered a judgment clarifying that the payment of gratuity to teachers in basic schools is currently governed by specific Government Orders (GOs) issued by the State Government, and not solely by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Case Overview: Seeking Gratuity Under the 1972 Act

The case involved 25 writ petitions filed by retired employees or dependents of deceased employees of the Basic Education Department. These petitioners, some dating back to retirements or deaths as early as 2002, approached the court seeking directives for the District Basic Education Officers to release their gratuity along with interest. Their primary argument was the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to teachers of basic schools, asserting its overriding effect over other enactments.

Arguments Presented Before the Court

Petitioners' Counsel , including Sri Shoar Mohammad Khan and Sri Quazi Mohammad Akram, argued that teachers fall under the definition of "employee" in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. They emphasized Section 14 of the Act, which gives it overriding power over other laws. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments like Birla Institute of Technology vs. The State of Jharkhand and others to argue for teachers' inclusion under the Act.

Respondents' Counsel , representing the Basic Education Officers and the State, contended that the petitioners' claims were significantly delayed and that they had failed to challenge or even disclose the existence of Government Orders specifically governing gratuity for teachers in basic schools. They argued that these GOs stipulate conditions for gratuity eligibility, which the petitioners, having worked until the age of 62 without opting for earlier retirement, did not meet. They cited Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Shivkali and others and Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastav and others vs. State of U.P. and others , to support their position that working until 62 years under existing GOs disqualifies teachers from gratuity.

Court's Observations and Reasoning: "Not Approached With Clean Hands"

Justice Shamshery expressed strong disapproval of the petitioners' approach, stating that they "have not approached this court with clean hands" by failing to disclose the relevant Government Orders. The court noted:

> "It is difficult to believe that petitioners have no knowledge about relevant Government Orders whereby gratuity is payable to Teachers in certain conditions, despite they have worked for many years in Primary Schools/ Junior High Schools. Not disclosing the said Government Orders is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court."

The judgment highlighted that while recent Supreme Court decisions have broadened the scope of "establishment" and "employee" under the Gratuity Act to include teachers in private institutions and Anganwadi workers where no specific rules existed, the situation is different for basic education teachers in UP. Here, Government Orders provide a separate framework for gratuity. The court emphasized that the latter part of the definition of "employee" in the Gratuity Act allows for such specific rules.

The court also rejected the petitioners' argument of "repugnancy" as there was no direct challenge to the validity of the Government Orders in the petitions.

Court's Decision: Writ Petitions Dismissed, Liberty to Seek Remedies Under GOs

Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court dismissed all 25 writ petitions. However, it clarified that this dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from seeking benefits under the existing Government Orders if their cases fall within the ambit of those orders. The court stated:

> "However, if petitioners’ case still falls under referred Government Orders, they have liberty to take available legal recourse to avail it’s benefit for payment of gratuity and for that reference of Shivkali (supra) and Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others be taken note of."

Implications: This judgment reinforces that for basic education teachers in Uttar Pradesh, the entitlement and conditions for gratuity are presently dictated by Government Orders. While the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, has a broad scope, the court has clarified that it does not automatically override specific state government regulations in this context. Teachers seeking gratuity must therefore navigate the framework established by the relevant Government Orders and ensure they meet the stipulated conditions.