The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth (Allahabad): In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the right of teachers to receive gratuity even if they opt for voluntary retirement before the age of 60. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Sehrun Nisha, challenging an order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, on December 2, 2023.
The petitioner, who had sought voluntary retirement at the age of 57, was denied gratuity on the grounds that it is payable only to those who retire at the age of 60 (as opposed to those who retire at 62) or to teachers who die before attaining the age of 60. The petitioner’s counsel, R.B. Singh, argued that according to a Government Order dated December 14, 2011, teachers serving in aided Intermediate Colleges are entitled to gratuity under the applicable rules if they opt to retire at 60, even if they have not completed ten years of qualifying service.
On April 26, 2024, the High Court, presided over by Justice J.J. Munir, passed an interim order granting the District Minority Welfare Officer an opportunity to reconsider the matter, noting that the reasoning for denying gratuity to the petitioner was “prima facie absolutely flawed.” The case was adjourned to May 7, 2024, for fresh consideration.
However, the District Minority Welfare Officer, in a memo dated May 3, 2024, maintained the stance that gratuity is payable only to teachers of aided Intermediate Institutions who retire at the age of 60. The officer relied on an objection raised by the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, in a memo dated September 9, 2020, which was annexed to the May 3, 2024 memo.
The Joint Director (Pension) had observed that the petitioner, Abul Kalam, had voluntarily retired at the age of 57 years, 4 months, and 16 days due to ill health. The memo stated that as per the provisions of relevant Government Orders, gratuity is admissible only to teachers who retire at the age of 60/62 years or to those who opt for retirement at 58/60 years. Since the petitioner did not meet these conditions, the entitlement to gratuity lacked statutory basis and justification.
Justice Munir, in his judgment, noted that the age of a retiring employee should never be reckoned in terms of days and months, but rather in terms of completed years. As long as an employee has not turned 58, they are to be regarded as 57 years old. The petitioner, therefore, was an employee who had chosen to retire prematurely at the age of 57.
The court observed that the Government Orders and rules in question give effect to a scheme wherein a teacher who serves an extended tenure up to 62 years is deprived of the gratuity to which they would be entitled if they retired at the conventional age of 60. The loss of gratuity is a consequence of serving two additional years beyond the conventional age.
In the present case, the petitioner had chosen to retire prematurely at 57. The court clarified that the option to retire at 60 should be understood in contrast to the option to retire at the unconventional age of 62, and not as a prerequisite for receiving gratuity. Retirement at 60 is not an entitling fact that leads an employee to acquire a right to gratuity; rather, an employee’s right to gratuity is determined by the number of years they have served. Choosing to serve beyond the conventional age of 60 results in the employee being divested of the right to gratuity in exchange for the extra remuneration received during those additional years of service.
The court criticized the interpretation adopted by the Joint Director (Pension) and the District Minority Welfare Officer, describing it as a product of “treading the beaten path” and showing a lack of application of mind and understanding of the underlying principle.
Justice Munir directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow, to bear these remarks in mind and pass appropriate orders to prevent such perverse interpretations by officials in the Department of Secondary Education, which prejudice the valuable rights of teachers to receive gratuity to which they are otherwise entitled. The Joint Director (Pension) and the District Minority Welfare Officer were also instructed to take note of the order and refrain from repeating such interpretations in the future.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated December 2, 2023, and issued a mandamus to the respondents to sanction and calculate the petitioner’s gratuity, taking into account the total number of completed years of service rendered before premature retirement. The court directed that the determination of the petitioner’s gratuity entitlement should be completed within 15 days, and the gratuity should be paid within the next 15 days thereafter.
The court also ordered that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow, through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, and to the Joint Director (Pension) and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours.
This landmark judgment serves as a significant victory for teachers’ rights, ensuring that their entitlement to gratuity is not unjustly denied due to premature retirement. It underscores the importance of a fair and rational interpretation of service rules and government orders, taking into account the underlying principles and the best interests of the employees. The Allahabad High Court’s decision sets a precedent that will have far-reaching implications for teachers in similar situations, safeguarding their rightful benefits and reinforcing the value of their dedicated service to the education system.
