In a landmark judgment dated 01.10.2024, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Single Judge HMJ Manish Mathur, in batch of petitions filed by the Associations of Retired teachers of the State, has held that the teachers of State Universities and their affiliate and associate colleges are eligible for payment of gratuity at the time of superannuation.
Senior Advocate Shri Sandeep Dixit briefed by Adv Apoorva Bhumesh appeared for more than 300 retired teachers across the State of Uttar Pradesh.
It is relevant to note that as per Government Order dated 30.03.1983 the teachers were provided with the option of either taking gratuity at the age of 58 years along with pension and other retrial benefits, or forego gratuity while opting to retire at the age of 60 years.
By a subsequent Government Order dated 04.02.2004 the retirement age was increased to 62 years, however the gratuity could only be availed when the teachers retired at the age of 60 years.
The Court noted with approval, the judgments referred by the Petitioners in cases of Independent Schools' Federation of India versus Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1113, Birla Institute of Technology versus State of Jharkhand and Others 2019 4 SCC 513, G.B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology vs. Sri Damodar Mathpal Order dated 18.11.2021 in SLP C No. 1803/2018 and the 2009 Amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 to hold that the teachers were indeed covered under the definition of 'employee' under section 2(e) of the 1972 Act with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.
By the 2009 Amendment, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997. The Court held that teachers as a class have been brought under the definition of 'employee' by means of the Amending Act and would form a single class irrespective of whether they belong to Primary, Secondary or Degree Colleges etc.
The Court further held that at the time of notification of Government Order dated 30.03.1983, teachers as a class were not included in the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972. However, the situation underwent a sea change with the advent of Amending Act No.47 of 2009 whereby the Government Order dated 30.03.1983 lost all significance since teachers were now covered statutorily under the Act, 1972 w.e.f. 03.04.1997.
Court observed that as per the non-obstante clause in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, the provisions of Act would continue to be in force irrespective of anything contained which is inconsistent with any other provisions. As per Section 5 exemption from applicability of the Act, 1972 could be granted.
The Court observed that the aspect of option being exercised by the teachers at 58/60 years or at 60/62 years of age has already been dealt with by Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of G.B. Pant University versus Appellate Authority and Others, Writ Petition No.395 of 2017 (M/S) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1803 of 2018 vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2021.
Court held that principles of acquiescence and estoppel with regard to exercise of option by teachers cannot prevail over statutory conditions.
Court noted with approval the ratios of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (A) Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Kanpur versus Mujib Ullah Khan and others, (2019) 6 SCC 103 as well as in the case of (B) Allahabad Bank & another versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2 SCC 44.
In view of the above, Government Orders dated 30.03.1983 and 04.02.2004 were quashed to the extent of denial of gratuity benefits to such Teachers who exercised their option to continue in service for the extended period.
Opposite parties were directed to ensure payment of gratuity to the petitioners-teachers alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on such arrears with effect from the date of their superannuation till the date of actual payment.
Comments