Delhi High Court
Anuradha Gulati vs Directorate Of Education And Anr. on 9 July, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.2099/2012
% 9th July, 2013
ANURADHA GULATI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranav Sapra, Adv. with Mr. Susheel
Bhartiya, Advs.
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Anil Aggarwal and Ms. Alpana
Pachauri, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by one Ms. Anuradha Gulati, who was a
teacher in the respondent no.2-Queen Mary's School. Petitioner resigned from
service on 19.8.1997. Petitioner seeks payment of gratuity alongwith the interest.
Relief is also claimed for leave encashment. Interest on the unpaid amounts under
both heads is also prayed.
2. Payment of gratuity is covered by Section 4 of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. By virtue of Section 4(1)(b) a person who resigns from service
WPC 2099/2012 Page 1 of 4
is entitled to gratuity. Computation of payment of gratuity is in terms of sub-
Section 2 of Section 4 and which states that for each year of service 15 days of last
drawn salary will be paid as gratuity. For calculating the period of one year any
period served in excess of six months will be taken as one year.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner worked as a teacher with the
respondent no.2-school for 11 years. Therefore, in terms of Section 4(2) petitioner
will be entitled to gratuity of 5 ½ months of last drawn salary in view of the fact
that the petitioner had worked for about 11 years. I cannot agree with the
contention of the petitioner that 15 days salary is given for six months of service in
view of the circular of the Director of Education dated 30.4.2004 because I do not
find anything in the circular which overrides the statutory provision of Section 4(2)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Also, a mere circular by a Government
department cannot override a specific statutory provision.
4. I may note that I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of
payment of gratuity to school employees in the judgment in the case of Deepak
Dua Vs. Directorate of Education & Anr. WP(C) No. 7040/2011 decided on
10.4.2013. In this judgment I have referred to various circulars of the Directorate
of Education and the provision of Section 13A which was brought in by the
amending Act of 2009 in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This Section 13A
WPC 2099/2012 Page 2 of 4
clarifies that gratuity did in fact become payable to school employees w.e.f
3.4.1997.
5. After this writ petition was filed, petitioner has been paid the gratuity
equal to 5 ½ months of salary. Petitioner therefore stands paid the gratuity amount.
The only issue remains is that whether petitioner should be entitled to interest. In
my opinion, payment of gratuity is not a favour done or bounty given to an
employee. Gratuity is paid and payable immediately on retirement as a right for
the service rendered to an employer. If the departments delay payment of gratuity,
for whatever reasons, an employee cannot be denied interest for the delayed
period.
6. In the present case, since gratuity to the petitioner became due after
3.4.1997 because the petitioner resigned on 19.8.1997, petitioner will be entitled
to interest at the rate of 7 ½ % per annum simple from 19.8.1997 till 15.07.2012
when the payment of gratuity was made to the petitioner during the pendency.
7. Leave encashment amount has also been paid to the petitioner during
the pendency of this petition. In my opinion, so far as leave encashment is
concerned, I am not inclined to agree to grant any interest to the petitioner for the
reason that I find that the first written communication by petitioner to the
authorities is only in the year 2010 viz on 5.1.2010. Leave encashment amount is
WPC 2099/2012 Page 3 of 4
also only of `6,422/- and considering all the facts of the case I am not inclined to
grant interest on the said amount.
8. I may note that there is inter se lethargy between the Director of
Education and school but the inter se lethargy cannot result any delay in payment
of gratuity to an employee.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of by granting
the petitioner interest on gratuity as stated above and holding the petitioner entitled
to interest at 7 ½ % per annum from 19.8.1997 to 15.07.2012. Interest will be paid
by the respondents jointly and severely to the extent that 95% will be paid by the
Director of Education and 5% by the respondent no.2-school. I note that the
respondent no.2-school is a government aided school and therefore 95% of the aid
is being disbursed by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2. Parties are left to
bear their own costs.
JULY 09, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
