In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated June 22, 2018, which denied gratuity benefits to professors who continued in service beyond their prescribed age of superannuation. The court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure the payment of gratuity along with 6% annual interest from the date of retirement.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Professor Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi, challenging the rejection of his gratuity claim as communicated by the authorities on December 2, 2024. Professor Ashrafi had been appointed as a Lecturer/Assistant Professor in St. John’s College, Agra, affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, on January 7, 1992. He later served as a Professor at Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Language University, Lucknow, retiring on June 30, 2024. Despite his years of service, his gratuity claim was denied based on his continuation in service beyond the age of 60 years, an issue previously adjudicated upon in similar cases.
The petitioner, represented by Advocates Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Ayush Chaudhary, sought parity with previous judicial pronouncements, including the High Court’s decision in Writ-A No. 5724 of 2024, University College Retired Teachers Welfare Association, Lucknow & Another v. State of U.P. & Others, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in SLP (C) No. 23788 of 2014.
The respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, and other concerned officials, were represented by C.S.C. and Advocate Shubham Tripathi.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The case primarily revolved around two key legal questions:
1. Whether the petitioners fall under the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and are thereby entitled to gratuity benefits.
2. Whether their earlier option to continue service beyond the standard retirement age bars them from claiming gratuity benefits due to the doctrine of acquiescence or estoppel.
Justice Manish Mathur, presiding over the case, referred to the legislative amendments incorporated in 2009 that retrospectively brought teachers within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, effective from April 3, 1997. The court held that all teachers, regardless of whether they belong to primary, secondary, or degree colleges, are now entitled to gratuity benefits.
In a significant observation, the court stated:
“Since the amendment incorporated in the Act of 1972 has been notified with effect from 03.04.1997, it has been made retrospective in nature and would cover all such teachers who are covered by the aforesaid Amending Act of 2009.”
Addressing the argument of estoppel, the court asserted:
“The provisions of the Act, 1972, would prevail over any Government Order since principles of acquiescence and estoppel do not apply against statutory provisions.”
Judgment and Directions
The High Court concluded that the Government Orders dated March 30, 1983, and February 4, 2004, were redundant and inapplicable post the 2009 amendment. It ruled that the denial of gratuity to teachers who opted to continue in service beyond 60 years was unlawful and ordered the government to:
– Quash Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated June 22, 2018, and the rejection letter dated December 2, 2024.
– Ensure the payment of gratuity to Professor Ashrafi and similarly placed teachers, along with interest at 6% per annum, from their respective dates of superannuation until the actual payment.
– Comply with the order within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy.
