Uttarakhand High Court

Nawal Kishore Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 29 November, 2023

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                AT NAINITAL
                     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT

                WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 1846 OF 2022

                        29TH NOVEMBER, 2023

Nawal Kishore Verma                                       .....Petitioner.
                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                             ....Respondents.

                                       With
                WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 1841 OF 2022
Vijendra Kumar Rastogi                                    .....Petitioner.
                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                             ....Respondents.

                                       With
                WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 1842 OF 2022
Navendra Pal Singh                                        .....Petitioner.
                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                             ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s)         :      Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Mr. Kailash
                                             Chandra and Mr. Rajat Joshi,
                                             learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :      Mr. Sushil Vashistha,   learned
                                             Standing Counsel.

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Pankaj Purohit)

Since all these writ petitions involve the same

controversy, therefore, all are being decided by this common

judgment. For the purpose of brevity, the facts of Writ

Petition (S/S) No.1846 of 2022, "Nawal Kishore Verma vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others", are taken for consideration of

the controversy.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has

sought indulgence of this Court for a direction to the

respondents to grant the entire amount of gratuity of the

petitioner from the date of his superannuation, i.e.

30.06.2003 till the date of actual payment, and the interest is

also claimed on the amount of said gratuity @10% per

annum from the date of superannuation of the petitioner till

the date of actual payment.

3. The facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary detail,

are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher

(LT Grade) (Physics) with respondent no.4- Uday Raj Hindu

Inter College, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar

(hereinafter referred to as the "Institution"). It is pertinent to

mention that the said institution is a private aided institution

in the grant-in-aid with the respondent- State. The

respondent- Department invited options from the teachers

regarding their date of retirement on superannuation at the

age of 58 years or 60 years, and the petitioner had given

option of his retirement on superannuation at the age of 60

years.

4. The petitioner retired on superannuation at the age

of 60 years on 30.06.2003 from the said institution after

satisfactory service. All the retiral dues of the petitioner were

paid by the respondents, but for the gratuity, which according

to the petitioner, he was entitled to get. The petitioner made

several requests, both oral and in writing, to the respondents

to release the gratuity, but the same has not been paid

constraining the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the

present writ petition in the year 2022.

5. The respondent- State filed its counter-affidavit,

and in the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that

pursuant to the Government Order No.4026/12-08-400

(19)/84, dated 19th December, 1984, the options were invited

from the teachers who have been appointed prior to

01.01.1984 as to whether they wish to retire on attaining the

age of 58 years, or 60 years in a prescribed format.

6. It is the case of the respondent- State that those

who had given option of retirement age of 58 years were

entitled for benefit of pension, family pension, general

provident fund and gratuity in accordance with the aforesaid

Government Order. It is the further case of the respondent-

State that the employees who were appointed prior to

01.01.1984, and had given option for retirement at the age of

60 years, shall not be entitled to the benefit of gratuity.

7. It is also the case of the respondent-State, as per

the counter-affidavit, that by virtue of Government Order

No.17-xxvii (7)अ.आ./2005, dated 25th September, 2005, only

those teachers who were due to retire on 30.06.2005, and

had submitted their option for retirement at the age of 58

years, such teachers will now be retired at the age of 60

years on superannuation, and they shall be paid gratuity.

Since the petitioner retired prior to 30.06.2005, he will not be

entitled to get the benefit of gratuity in view of the aforesaid

Government Order dated 25th September, 2005.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the aforesaid controversy regarding the payment of

gratuity to such teachers, who have initially exercised their

option for retirement on superannuation at the age of 60

years, would be entitled to get the gratuity, irrespective of

the fact as to whether they have exercised their option for

retirement at the age of 58 years or 60 years, has been set to

rest by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dated 01.11.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.395 of 2017

(M/S), "G.B. Pant University vs. Appellate Authority & others"

and batch of writ petitions.

10. It is further informed that the said decision was

challenged unsuccessfully upto the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Government Order dated 19th December, 1984, relied upon

by the respondents, is not applicable to the case of the

petitioner, as the petitioner is a teacher and is not a non-

teaching staff, while from the bare perusal of the aforesaid

Government Order, it is reflected that the said Government

Order is meant for non-teaching staff working in the

Agricultural Universities.

11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the aforesaid Government Order is issued

with respect to the non-teaching staff of the Agricultural

Universities of the State, and for that reason too, the said

Government Order cannot be pressed into service to deprive

the petitioner of his gratuity.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the Government Order dated 25th September, 2005 set

out a date which speaks that the said Government Order will

be applicable to teachers who retired on superannuation on

30.06.2005. It is strenuously submitted by learned counsel

for the petitioner that a pragmatic meaning shall be given to

the said Government Order, which may be read as applicable

to all teachers, who retired on or before 30.06.2005, and

there is no logic to fix the cut-off date as on 30.06.2005 only.

13. Per contra, learned State Counsel fairly submits

that so far as the Government Order dated 19th December,

1984 is concerned, the said Government Order appears to

have been passed in respect of retiral dues of the non-

teaching staff of the Agricultural Universities. But, to the

object, which has been raised by the State in counter-

affidavit, on the strength of the Government Order dated 25th

September, 2005, it is argued vehemently that the said

Government Order will be applicable only to those teachers,

whose date of retirement is 30.06.2005, and the benefit of

gratuity can only be applicable/ admissible to such teachers

who retired on 30.06.2005.

14. I have perused the writ petition, the Government

Orders relied upon by the respondent- State, and the

judgment dated 01.11.2017, passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.395 of 2017 and other

connected writ petitions.

15. The writ petition deserves to be allowed for the

reason that the aforesaid controversy as to whether a person

is entitled to gratuity irrespective of the fact whether he

retired at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years, after

exercising his option for such retirement, has been set to rest

by the aforesaid judgment, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, and further the date of retirement, which is fixed

by the Government Order dated 25th September, 2005, as

30.06.2005, is quite unreasonable and from the tone and

tenor of the aforesaid Government Order, it transpires that

the benefit of said Government Order will be applicable to all

those teachers who retired prior to 30.06.2005.

16. There is yet another aspect of the Government

Order dated 25th September, 2005. The Condition 1- of the

Government Order is quoted below.

"1- ftu f"k{kdksa dh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk fnukad 30 twu 2005 Fkh

rFkk iwoZ esa ftUgksaus 58 o'kZ ij lsokfuo`fRr dk fodYi fn;k Fkk] ,sls

f"k{kd mDr "kklukns'k dh O;oLFkk ds vuq:Ik vc 60 o'kZ dh vk;q ij

lsokfuo`Rr gksaxs rFkk mUgsa xzSP;qVh dh vuqeU;rk gksxhA "

17. From perusal of the Government Order dated 25th

September, 2005, it is reflected that it has two pre-conditions

for its applicability- (one) teachers whose date of

superannuation was 30.06.2005 and (two) who had earlier

given their option for retirement at the age of 58 years.

18. But in the case in hand, the petitioner had given his

option for retirement at the age of 60 years. This Government

Order was issued only to facilitate those teachers who had

given their option for retirement at the age of 58 years. In

this view of the matter too, the Government Order would not

come to help the respondent. Moreover, by this Government

Order gratuity was made admissible to those who had earlier