Allahabad High Court Quashes GO To The Extent It Denied Gratuity To Teachers Continuing Beyond Superannuation

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a Government Order to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement, citing primacy of statute over executive fiat.

Petition was filed challenging Clause 4(1) of G.O. dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection of claim for gratuity to the petitioner. By said G.O., gratuity was denied ostensibly due to teachers working for additional years, which entitled them to more service benefits.

In University College Retired Teachers Welfare Association, Lucknow and another vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court formulated two questions for consideration: whether the petitioners were covered under the definition of employees in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and if they were liable to be excluded from payment even if covered by the definition clause.

The Court, therein, noted that teachers as a class were brought under the definition of employees by amendment to the 1972 Act. This amendment was retrospective in nature, and would cover all teachers covered by the amending Act. Accordingly, it was held that teachers would come under the definition of employees in the 1972 Act.

Thereafter, the Court stated that previous G.O.s had lost all significance due to the amending Act bringing teachers within purview of the definition of employees.

The Court, in University College case, cited Section 14 of the Act (non-obstante clause), wherein it was stated that provisions of the Act would continue to be in force irrespective of anything contained being inconsistent with other provisions. It was not the case of the respondents that the teachers were exempted from applicability under Section 5 of the 1972 Act. Accordingly, mandatory conditions of Section 14 would automatically apply. It was further observed that as per settled law, the statute prevails over executive orders.

Therefore, the Court had held that the aspect of teachers waiving their gratuity in exchange for additional years of service would become irrelevant, as the principles of acquiescence and estoppel do not apply against statute.

Considering the facts of the case, Justice Manish Mathur held that the decision in University College was held to be squarely applicable, with the only difference being that enhancement of age was from 60 to 62 years, whereas in University College, it was from 58 to 60 years. Denial of gratuity was on identical logic in both matters.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The G.O. and subsequent communication were quashed, with the respondents directed to pay gratuity to the petitioner with 6% interest on such arrears from the date of his superannuation till date of payment.

Case Title: Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52 [WRIT - A No. - 292 of 2025]

Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52

Click Here To Read/Download Order