सेवानिवृत्त शिक्षक को ग्रेच्युटी के लिए आयु सीमा का बंधन नहीं, सहायता प्राप्त शिक्षण संस्थानों से जुड़े शिक्षकों के हित में हाईकोर्ट का बड़ा निर्णय
प्रयागराज : इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने सहायता प्राप्त शिक्षण संस्थानों के शिक्षकों के हित में महत्वपूर्ण फैसला सुनाया है। अदालत ने अपने निर्णय में स्पष्ट किया कि सेवानिवृत्ति के बाद शिक्षक ग्रेच्युटी (उपदान) पाने के हकदार हैं और इसके लिए आयु सीमा का कोई बंधन नहीं लगाया जा सकता। न्यायमूर्ति अरिंदम सिन्हा और न्यायमूर्ति सत्य वीर सिंह की खंडपीठ ने मेहरजहां की याचिका पर सुनवाई करते हुए यह आदेश पारित किया।
याची ने एक सहायता प्राप्त संस्थान में अपनी सेवाएं पूरी करने के बाद 60 वर्ष की आयु में सेवानिवृत्ति प्राप्त की थी, लेकिन उन्हें ग्रेच्युटी का लाभनहीं दिया गया था।
अदालत ने अपने फैसले में कहा कि उत्तर प्रदेश स्कूल और कालेज शिक्षक ग्रेच्युटी फंड नियमावली 1964 के तहत ग्रेच्युटी केवल सेवा के दौरान मृत्यु होने पर ही देय थी, जो सेवानिवृत्त शिक्षकों के अधिकारों का पूर्ण संरक्षण नहीं करती।
कोर्ट ने माना कि सहायता प्राप्त संस्थानों के शिक्षक राज्य सरकार के कर्मचारियों के समान ही होते हैं। राज्य सरकार की ओर से दलील दी गई थी कि शिक्षक ने 58 वर्ष की आयु में सेवानिवृत्त होने का विकल्प नहीं चुना था, इसलिए वे ग्रेच्युटी की पात्र नहीं हैं। कोर्ट ने इस तर्क को खारिज करते हुए कहा कि एक सरकारी आदेश किसी वैधानिक प्रविधान या नियम का स्थान नहीं ले सकता।
पीठ ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि ग्रेच्युटी का भुगतान करना नियोक्ता की वैधानिक जिम्मेदारी है और इसे केवल देरी के आधार पर खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता। अदालत ने 'पेमेंट आफ ग्रेच्युटी एक्ट, 1972 के प्रविधानों का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि याची इस कानून के तहत लाभ पाने की पात्र हैं। संबंधित अधिकारियों को कोर्ट ने निर्देश दिया है कि वह याची की ग्रेच्युटी की गणना कर आठ सप्ताह के भीतर उसका भुगतान सुनिश्चित कराएं।
हाईकोर्ट ऑर्डर 👇
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:77821-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 12810 of 2024
Smt Mehar Jahan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Shoar Mohammad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)
1. Petitioner served as a teacher in an aided educational institution. Her service conditions included application of U.P. School and College Teachers Gratuity Fund Rules, 1964. She served out her tenure and retired at age 60. She is getting pension. After a long time, she has moved Court with her contention that she did not get gratuity. Mr. Shaor Mohammad Khan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate, Additional Advocate General, for State.
2. On our query Mr. Khan submits, his client had made representation dated 7th May, 2024. Till before then she was unaware that her pension not including gratuity gave rise to a cause. Under the rules of 1964 she did not get any gratuity because said rules provide for payment of gratuity only in event of the teacher dying in harness. In the circumstances, she cannot be barred from seeking to enforce her legal right to have payment of gratuity under provisions in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He relies on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective no.768 of 2021 (Jwala Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others). Relied upon paragraph is reproduced below. "It is settled law that payment of gratuity is the right of the employee, provided gratuity is actually payable in accordance with law. Non-payment of gratuity, in the event it is legally payable, is the statutory responsibility of the employer. Therefore, the writ petition of the widow of the deceased employee asking for payment of gratuity cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of laches, unless it is found that the gratuity is not legally payable." He seeks interference. 3. Mr. Saran submits, applicability of the Act of 1972 to petitioner depends on definition of 'employee' given in the Act. Section 2(e) is reproduced below.
"2(e). "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity."
(emphasis supplied)
He relies on judgments of the Supreme Court, firstly for proposition that a government aided educational institution is akin to the State Government, as employer. Secondly, there is exclusion by the definition clause in respect of application of the Act to persons, who are employees of, inter alia, the State Government and is governed by rules providing for payment of gratuity. Relied upon judgments are as under.
i) Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, reported in (2025) 10 SCC 248. Paragraph 8 is reproduced below. "8. It must be observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. Pertinent is the fact that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though strictly speaking the teachers may not be holding a post under the State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement."
(emphasis supplied)
ii) N. Manoharan, etc. vs. The Administrative Officer and another, reported in (2026) 2 SCR 596. Paragraph 12 from the judgment is reproduced below.
"12. It is relevant to notice that the amended definition deals with the first limb of Section 2(e), and the second exclusionary limb is the same in the pre-and post-amendment provisions. Construing Section 2(e), the second limb begins with the words "but does not include" any such person (i) who holds a post under the Central Government, (ii) a State Government, (iii) is governed by any other Act or (iv) by any Rules providing payment of gratuity. The exclusionary clause, if read by applying the golden rule without a further test, excludes employees of the Central and State Governments from the meaning of "employee" under the PG Act. Secondly, it also excludes a person who is governed by any other act. Thirdly, even if it is used as "or" but not as "and", it excludes any such person who is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. The provision contains the words both "means" and "does not include". Under interpretation of statutes, this Court has repeatedly held that coupling the word "means" with "includes" denotes an exhaustive definition. Conversely, the word "means" and "does not include" should be read as exclusionary language that strictly excludes the scope of the provision from certain classes. Consequently, a person who is governed by any other Act, or governed by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity, does not come within the ambit of the definition of "employee" under the PG Act."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Mr. Saran submits further, there is Government order (GO) dated 10th August, 1978 in place. By it, teachers such as petitioner had the option to avail of payment of gratuity, on opting on or after 30th June, 1978 to retire at age 58. Petitioner exercised her option in the negative and continued to serve till she achieved age of superannuation at 60 years. Hence, she continued to be governed by the rules of 1964. As such, she not being included in meaning of 'employee' given in the Act of 1972, now cannot say that she is entitled to payment of gratuity under the Act. In any event the writ petition is grossly delayed. It be dismissed.
5. Meaning of gratuity has not been given in the Act of 1972. Oxford English Dictionary, 12th Edition of South Asia Edition gives meaning of 'gratuity' as reproduced below.
"gratuity - A sum of money paid to an employee at the end of a period of employment."
Taking part of the meaning given in section 2(e) requiring, an excluded person to be governed by, inter alia, any rules providing for payment of gratuity, inevitable conclusion is that the rules of 1964 provide for payment of gratuity to only those teachers, who die in harness after having continuously served for three years. Otherwise, the rules do not provide for payment of gratuity. At this stage Mr. Khan points out, his client drawing pension also does not have component of gratuity inbuilt into the benefit. He relies on clause (17) under definitions article 366 in the Constitution. The clause is reproduced below.
"366. Definitions.
.........(17) "pension" means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable; a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund."
(emphasis supplied)
6. In other words petitioner, in our view, having served till she superannuated on achieving 60 years of age, cannot be said to be covered by the rules of 1964 as, we reiterate, they are only applicable for payment of gratuity to those teachers, who die while in service. In the circumstances, it is understandable that aforesaid GO dated 10th August, 1978 was issued. Mr. Saran hands up English translation of the GO. Paragraph 1 from the translation is reproduced below.
"I am directed to say that orders have already been issued for the sanction of pension to the teachers of non-government higher secondary schools aided by the state fund at the rates admissible to their counterparts in government schools. A demand has also been made to the government that such teachers of the said category of schools who retire by opting for retirement at the age of 58 years, be given death and retirement gratuity benefits. The government, after due consideration, has accepted this demand. Therefore, the Honorable Governor orders that such teachers who retire on or after June 30, 1978, by opting for retirement at the age of 58 years, be granted the aforesaid gratuity at the rates admissible to their counterparts in government schools."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In N. Manoharan (supra) the Supreme Court also declared on interpretation of statutes. We see the definition clause [section 2(e)] to provide in the alternative, for exclusion of employees of the Central and State Governments. However, the requirement of them being covered by any other Act or rules attaches as the word joining the alternatives is 'and'. Our aforesaid view is thus reinforced by the definition clause since, even though petitioner is said to have worked for an aided institution, declared to be akin to the State Government in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade (supra), she was not covered by the rules for payment of gratuity at the end of her service. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the GO was an option for petitioner to avail gratuity by retiring at age 58 and not having so opted, was allowed to work for another two years in lieu of gratuity. In any event, a GO is neither a statutory provision nor can be said to be a rule.
8. We conclude, petitioner stands covered by provisions in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. She was and is entitled to payment of gratuity, having worked for an aided institution declared to be akin to State Government, which provides for payment of gratuity in the pension paid to their employees. As such, her delay in approaching the writ Court for obtaining payment of the gratuity, being gratitude for services rendered, cannot be barred. We respectfully agree with view taken in Jwala Devi (supra).
9. The writ petition is allowed to extent above. Respondent no.4 is directed to take expeditious steps for sanction and disbursement of gratuity calculated in respect of petitioner, in accordance with provisions in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. This be done within eight weeks from communication of certified copy of this order, to be made by petitioner.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
April 9, 2026
