Entitlement To Gratuity Not Dependent On Retirement Age But Number Of Years Of Service : Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.“Retirement at sixty years is not an entitling fact, which leads the employee to acquire a right to receive gratuity, which he otherwise does not have. An employee gets his right to gratuity according to the number of the years that...
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.
“Retirement at sixty years is not an entitling fact, which leads the employee to acquire a right to receive gratuity, which he otherwise does not have. An employee gets his right to gratuity according to the number of the years that he serves,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Petitioner was a teacher in an aided intermediate institution who had opted to retire voluntarily at the age of 57. According to the Government Order dated 14.12.2011, which framed the rules for teachers serving in the aided intermediate colleges, it was provided that those who did not complete ten years of qualifying service, were not entitled to pension unless they opted to retire at the age of sixty years, in which case they were entitled to gratuity. Petitioner, falling outside the ambit of the said government order, was not eligible for gratuity and was seeking the same by way of this writ petition.
Finding the reasoning in the rejection order to the petitioner's plea for gratuity to be flawed, the Court provided the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj time to reconsider the matter.
In response, the District Minority Welfare Officer issued a memo dated 03.05.2024. He referred to an objection raised by the Joint Director(Pension), Prayagraj Division to be the reason for refusing to re-consider the matter. The District Minority Welfare Officer reiterated his stand that as per the extant rules, gratuity was payable only to those who opted to retire at the age of sixty years, which was to be distinguished from those who opted to retire at the age of sixty-two years and also in the case of teachers who died before attaining the age of sixty years.
The Court observed that where a person has an option to retire at the age of 62 instead of 60, it will not take away his right to receive gratuity. The Court held that gratuity is not an entitlement only for people retiring at the age of 60. It is earned by employees based on the numbers of years of their service.
The Court held that the reasoning of the Joint Director(Pension), Prayagraj Division and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj was without application of mind and understanding of principle.
A writ of mandamus was issued for sanctioning, calculating and handing over the gratuity owed to the petitioner.
“The Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj shall also take note of this order and will not repeat this kind of interpretation in future, if a similar set of rights were to arise for consideration” directed the Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Sehrun Nisha v. State Of Up And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6402 of 2024]