Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

WPSS/874/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 5291 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5291 UK
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/874/2024 on 6 November, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
                                                                   2025:UHC:9799
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS No. 2525 of 2024
                               With
                               WPSS No. 419 of 2023
                               WPSS No. 522 of 2023
                               WPSS No. 2191 of 2023
                               WPSS No. 2342 of 2023
                               WPSS No. 189 of 2024
                               WPSS No. 874 of 2024
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.   Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi & Mr. Suhal A.
                               Siddiqui, Advocates for the petitioners.
                               2.   Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy
                               Advocate General for the State of
                               Uttarakhand.
                               3.   Mr. Shubhang Dobhal & Mr. S.S.
                               Lingwal, Advocates for the respondent-

University.

4. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 2525 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.

5. Petitioner was a non-teaching employee of Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University, who retired from the post of Junior Engineer, on 31.01.2002; gratuity has been denied to him only on the ground that he had opted to retire at the age of 60 years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although initially, there were two categories of employee in University, namely, (i) those who had opted to retire at the age of 58 years, & 2025:UHC:9799

(ii) those who had opted to retire at the age of 60 years, and as per the then prevailing Government Orders, gratuity was payable only to first category of employees, namely, who had opted to retire at the age of 58 years. He further submits that subsequently, the age of superannuation of all University employees became 60 years, irrespective of option exercised by them, therefore, the classification of employees based on their option became redundant. He submits that this issue was decided in favour of similarly situate employees by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 395 of 2017, which was affirmed upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, submits that in view of the said judgment rendered by coordinate Bench, petitioner is also entitled to gratuity.

7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that in WPMS No. 395 of 2017 & other connected petitions, coordinate Bench was considering challenge thrown by the University to the order passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He submits that since employees had approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Controlling Authority had allowed their applications for release of gratuity and petitioners have directly approached this Court, without approaching Controlling Authority, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are being denied gratuity only on the ground that they had opted for 58 years of age of retirement and this classification, based on option 2025:UHC:9799

regarding age on superannuation, has been obliterated by virtue of judgment rendered by coordinate Bench, therefore, State Government be directed to examine the claim of the petitioners for gratuity.

9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, all the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners stake claim for gratuity by making application before the Secretary (Agriculture), who shall look into the matter and take decision, as per law, within four months from the date of receipt of such application. If the Secretary (Agriculture) decides in favour of the petitioners, then he shall grant approval to the University for releasing of gratuity, as per law, within two weeks thereafter.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 06.11.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d136

ASWAL 9512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610 C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.11.06 04:15:38 -08'00' 2025:UHC:9799

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter