Jharkhand High Court
Urwashi Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 November, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5785 of 2022
Urwashi Sinha ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill
Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher, Technical Education &
Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Binod Bihari Mahto, Koylanchal University, through its Registrar, Dhanbad
5. The Vice Chancellor, Binod Bihari Mahto, Koylanchal University, Dhanbad
6. The Registrar, Binod Bihari Mahto, Koylanchal University, Dhanbad
7. University Grants Commission, through its Secretary, New Delhi
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut
For Respondent Nos.1-3: Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C (Mines)-I
For Respondent Nos.4-6: Mr. A. K. Mehta
For Respondent No.7: Mr. Prasenjit Mahato
-----
05/08.11.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the
concerned respondents to enhance the maximum limit of retirement gratuity
payable to the teachers of the constituent colleges to Rs.20 Lacs w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband-Late
Rabindra Prasad joined as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science in Bokaro
Steel City College (presently constituted under Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal
University, Dhanabd) on 11.12.1981. He retired from the post of Associate
Professor on 31.12.2020 and died on 19.04.2021.
3. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue with
regard to payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs.20 Lacs to the retired teachers of
the constituent colleges has already been decided in affirmative in W.P.(S) No.
793/2021 [Mahendra Nath Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. and other
analogous cases] as well as in W.P.(S) No. 4921/2022 [Asit Ranjan
Batabyal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.], it would be appropriate to reproduce
the relevant part of the judgment dated 15.06.2023 rendered by this Court in the
case of Mahendra Nath Tiwari (Supra).
''13. The gratuity is the part of pension, as would appear from
Section 71 of the Jharkhand Universities Act, 2000 which contains a
provision for disbursement of Pension/Gratuity, Ex gratia
compensation. The aforesaid amendment provides that the gratuity
shall be at par with the employees and officers of the State
Government in 7th Pay Scale w.e.f 01.01.2016.
For ready reference, the aforesaid provision is referred
hereunder:
71. Pensions, gratuity, insurance and provident fund. -
(1) The University shall, subject to such manners and
conditions as may be prescribed by the Statutes,
constitute any pension, gratuity, insurance or provident
fund, as it may deem fit for the benefit of its officers,
teachers and other employees (excluding those who
are members of public services of India and whose
services are lent to the University under section 66.)
(2) Where any such pension, gratuity, insurance or
provident fund is constituted in this manner, the State
Government may declare that the provisions of the
Provident Funds Act, 1925 (Act No. 19 of 1925) shall
apply to the said Fund, as if that fund State Provident
fund.
The State in its counter affidavit has not disputed the
admissibility of the gratuity to be paid as prayed by the petitioners,
as would appear from paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and
paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit, which read as
under:
"11. So far claim of the petitioner pertaining to gratuity
payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- is concerned it is stated
that the same is under process.''
'12. In pursuance to the letter no. 492 it is stated that
the petitioners claim for Rs. 20,00,000/- gratuity has
been accepted and the payment for the same will be
made in due course with effect from 01.01.2016.'
The State since is admitting the entitlement of the amount of
gratuity of the writ petitioners to extent of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per
statement made at paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit and 12 of
the supplementary counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that
the claim for Rs. 20,00,000/-on the gratuity head has been accepted
and the payment of the same will be made in due course but within
which time it will be paid there is no averment to that effect. Since
gratuity is the part of the pension and as such the same is not bounty
and it is now become a fundamental right as per the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State
of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330.
For ready reference, paragraph 33 of the judgment is quoted
as under:
"33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are
of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive
pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere
executive order the State had no power to withhold the
same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under
Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of
Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated
June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive
pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner
under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution,
and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is
maintainable. It may 15 be that under the Pension Act
(Act 23 of 5 1871) there is a bar against a civil court
entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned
therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of
mandamus being issued to the State to property
consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of
pension according to law."
The moment the gratuity or part thereof is not found to be
bounty and the State Government has taken decision to extend the
benefit of enhanced quantum of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.
20,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016, it is the bounden duty of the State
Government to release the aforesaid amount but the amount still has
not been released. However, statement has been made without
disputing the aforesaid entitlement of the writ petitioners to be paid."
28. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of to the extent
as under:
(I). The petitioners will be entitled for the amount of gratuity at par
with the State Government to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- [Twenty
Lakhs] w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
However, the interest over the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-
shall be paid in favour of writ petitioners w.e.f. from 06.08.2021,
from the date of notification, within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of copy of order.
........................................................................................................''
4. Similarly relevant paragraphs i.e. 7 & 8 of the order dated 19.06.2023
passed in the case of Asit Ranjan Batabyal (Supra) are reproduced hereunder:
"7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submissions of
the parties across the bar, it appears that petitioner is entitled for
payment of Rs.20 Lac. in the head of gratuity on the following
counts:
(i). As per the Resolution of the State Government dated
24.02.2023, the respondents - State has clearly resolved that the
Pension, Gratuity, ex-gratia compensation etc. as per Section 71 of
Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 (adopted and as amended) shall
also be applicable to officers, teachers and Library and Physical
Education and Sports Cadres of the State Universities and Colleges
including affiliated and constituent 3 RC Colleges as the case may be.
Gratuity shall be paid at par with the employees and officers of the
State Govt. in 7th (Seventh) pay scale with effect from January 1,
2016.
(ii) In its Resolution dated 18.01.2017, the Finance Department
had clearly held in Clause 3.1 that 'The revised provisions as per
these orders shall apply to Government servants who retire/die in
harness on or after 1.1.2016. Further in Clause 6.2 it has been held
that the maximum limit of Retirement gratuity and death gratuity
shall be Rs.20 lakh. The ceiling on gratuity will increase by 25%
whenever the dearness allowance rises by 50% of the basic pay.
Accordingly, first proviso under Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, shall
stand modified to this extent". From the aforesaid Resolution of the
State, it appears that petitioner is entitled for gratuity at enhanced
rate.
8. Having heard arguments advanced by parties, I find that
petitioner has a good case and is entitled for gratuity at enhanced
rate. In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to file fresh
representation annexing all the documents as well as a copy of this
order. The University, upon receipt of said representation, shall
consider the same and thereafter make recommendation to the State
in accordance with law and the State, on receipt of such
recommendation, shall disburse the amount in view of its own
Resolution within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/
production of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the amount, the
University shall pay the same to the petitioner as per Rules, Statutes
and the Standing Orders and in view of aforesaid Resolution.''
5. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.
4 to 6, however, Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the said
respondents, submits that Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad is in
communication with the State Government for release of admissible amount of
gratuity to be paid to the retired teachers of the constituent colleges treating its
maximum ceiling up to Rs.20 Lacs. It is further submitted that since the issue with
regard to entitlement of the retired teachers of the constituent colleges to get the
gratuity amount to the extent of Rs.20 Lacs at par with the employees of the State
Government has already been set at rest by different orders/judgments
passed/rendered by this Court, the admissible amount of the same will be paid to
the petitioner within a reasonable period.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view different
judicial pronouncements of this Court that the retired teachers of constituent
colleges are entitled for payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs.20 Lacs at par with
the employees of the State Government as well as considering the aforesaid
submission of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, the present writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to pay the
admissible amount of gratuity to the petitioner treating its maximum ceiling up to
Rs.20 Lacs within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
7. The State-respondents i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall also ensure
availability of appropriate fund to Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University,
Dhanbad for payment of gratuity amount to the petitioner within the aforesaid
period.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
