Sehrun Nisha v. State of U.P. and

Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (District Basic Education Officer, District- Agra) as well as Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by respondent no.3- Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and a further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to sanction and release the amount of gratuity of the petitioner along with admissible interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent no.3-Joint Directory, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra dated 18.12.2021 is arbitrary and illegal, therefore, is liable to be set-aside. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4- District Basic Education Officer, District- Agra appeared before this Court and requested to assist the Court in the matter. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has placed reliance upon the order dated 7.5.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.-6420 of 2024 (Sehrun Nisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). The order dated 7.5.2024 is reproduced hereunder :- "Mr. J. N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel states at this juncture that one opportunity be provided to the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to reconsider the matter. A week's time is granted for the purpose. Adjourned to 07.05.2024 as fresh."

4. An opportunity was provided to the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to re-consider the matter. The District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj has skirted the opportunity granted to him by this Court. He has issued a memo dated 03.05.2024, where the stand taken is that gratuity is payable only to such teachers of the aided Intermediate Institutions, who opt to retire at the age of sixty years. He has referred to an objection in this regard raised by the Joint Director (Pension) Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj vide his memo dated 09.09.2020 annexed as Annexure no. 3 to his memo dated 03.05.2024, where it is observed: "शቦኍ ममो० अबबुल कललाम स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ ्ቚधलानिलाचलारर मदरसला नहिदलारतबुल दोረदቦኍपबुर ्ቚरलागरलाज कसे ्ቚकरण कला परቦኍ्ቌण नकरला गरला जजसमम उन्हिोረनिसे रहि कमቦኍ इइंनगत ककी हिवै नक ममो० अबबुल कललाम ककी जन्म नतजथि 15.08.1962 कसे आधलार पर अस्वस्थितला कसे कलारणवश 57 वरर 4 मलाहि 16 नदनि ककी आरबु पर स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिहए हिह। पमशनि ्ቚप्ቔ भलाग -5 मम ससेवलाननिववृज्ቈक गसेचरबुटቦኍ कला आगणनि करतसे हिहए ्ቚस्तलानवत नकरला गरला हिवै। सइंगत /्ቚचजलत शलासनिलादसेशोረ ककी ्ቚलानवधलाननित व्रवस्थिला कसे अनिबुरूप 60/62 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 58/60 वरर ककी अजधवररतला पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌक कमो हिቦኍ उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) अनिबुमन्र हिवै। शቦኍ कललाम उ्ሹ शतर/्ቚनतबन्ध ससे आचስኌलानदत निहिीሻ हिवै, जजसकसे कलारण उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) ककी अनिबुमन्रतला कला शलासनिलादसेनशक आधलार/औनचत्र स्प्ቖ निहिीሻ हिवै। अततः 60 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 58 वरर पर नवकल्प चरनि करनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌकोረ तथिला 62 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 60 वरर पर नवकल्प चरनि करनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌकोረ कमो हिቦኍ उपलादलानि ककी सबुनवधला सइंगत /्ቚचजलत शलासनिलादसेशोረ मम अनिबुमन्र हिवै। इसकसे अनतरर्ሹ अन्र आरबु वरर पर सहिलारतला ्ቚला्቎ नश्ቌण सइंस्थिलानि ससे स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ अध्रलापकोረ कमो उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) अनिबुमन्रतला नवररक शलासनिलादसेश कलारलारलर मम अ्ቕतनि उपलब्ध निहिीሻ हिवै। पमशनि ननिदसेशलालर कसे प्ቔ मम सइंगत शलासनिलादसेश ककी ्ቚनत सनहित ्ቚकरण उपलब्ध करलानिसे कला उलसेख नकरला गरला हिवै जजसससे ्ቚकरण परቦኍ्ቌणमोपरलाइंत ननिस्तलारण नकरला जला सकसे ।"

5. It is on the basis of the aforesaid note put up by the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj that the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj has refused to re-consider his stand that gratuity may be payable to the petitioner though he has prematurely elected to retire at the age of 57 years 4 months and 16 days. For one he may clarify that the age of a retiring employee is never to be reckoned in terms of days and months. It is to be reckoned in terms of the completed age. Thus, so long as an employee does not turn fifty-eight, he is to be regarded as fifty-seven years old. The petitioner, therefore, is an employee, who has chosen to retire at the age of fifty-seven years. Prematurely.

6. The Government Orders, under reference or rules, which these orders reflect or amplify, give effect to a scheme wherein a teacher, who serves for an extended tenure up to sixty-two years is deprived of his gratuity to which he would be entitled, if he were to retire at the conventional age of sixty years. He looses gratuity because he serves for two years more beyond the conventional years.

7. Here is a case, where the petitioner has chosen to retire at the age of fifty-seven years, prematurely. The option to retire at the age of sixty years is to be understood in contra-distinction to the option to retire at the unconventional and the higher age of sixty-two; it is not to be understood as an option vesting a teacher with a right to receive gratuity only if he elects to retire at sixty. 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. Rather, if he chooses to serve, as already said, beyond the conventional age of sixty years, he is divested of that right for the extra remuneration of two years in regular service that he receives. The interpretation, based on the relevant Government Orders by the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, is the product of what is conventionally called 'treading the beaten path', which shows utter lack of application of mind and non-understanding of principle.

8. In future, the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow will bear these remarks of ours in mind and pass appropriate orders so that these kind of perverse interpretations are not placed by the officials functioning in the Department of Secondary Education to the prejudice of teachers vis-a-vis their valuable right to receive gratuity to which they are otherwise entitled.

9. 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.

10. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.12.2023, passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to sanction and calculate gratuity to the petitioner, of course, taking into account the total number of completed years of service rendered by him before prematurely retiring. The reckoning of the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity shall be done within a period of fifteen days hence and gratuity determined shall be paid to the petitioner within next fifteen days thereafter.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours." From perusal of the record, it is clear that the controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical as in the case of Sehrun Nisha (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The respondent is at liberty to pass fresh order, if so advice. the petitioner may make Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing application/representation, ventilating all her grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3- Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra, within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, in the light of Sehrun Nisha (supra), by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 (District Basic Education Officer, District- Agra) as well as Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 passed by respondent no.3- Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and a further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to sanction and release the amount of gratuity of the petitioner along with admissible interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent no.3-Joint Directory, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra dated 18.12.2021 is arbitrary and illegal, therefore, is liable to be set-aside. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4- District Basic Education Officer, District- Agra appeared before this Court and requested to assist the Court in the matter. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has placed reliance upon the order dated 7.5.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No.-6420 of 2024 (Sehrun Nisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). The order dated 7.5.2024 is reproduced hereunder :- "Mr. J. N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel states at this juncture that one opportunity be provided to the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to reconsider the matter. A week's time is granted for the purpose. Adjourned to 07.05.2024 as fresh."

4. An opportunity was provided to the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to re-consider the matter. The District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj has skirted the opportunity granted to him by this Court. He has issued a memo dated 03.05.2024, where the stand taken is that gratuity is payable only to such teachers of the aided Intermediate Institutions, who opt to retire at the age of sixty years. He has referred to an objection in this regard raised by the Joint Director (Pension) Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj vide his memo dated 09.09.2020 annexed as Annexure no. 3 to his memo dated 03.05.2024, where it is observed: "शቦኍ ममो० अबबुल कललाम स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ ्ቚधलानिलाचलारर मदरसला नहिदलारतबुल दोረदቦኍपबुर ्ቚरलागरलाज कसे ्ቚकरण कला परቦኍ्ቌण नकरला गरला जजसमम उन्हिोረनिसे रहि कमቦኍ इइंनगत ककी हिवै नक ममो० अबबुल कललाम ककी जन्म नतजथि 15.08.1962 कसे आधलार पर अस्वस्थितला कसे कलारणवश 57 वरर 4 मलाहि 16 नदनि ककी आरबु पर स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिहए हिह। पमशनि ्ቚप्ቔ भलाग -5 मम ससेवलाननिववृज्ቈक गसेचरबुटቦኍ कला आगणनि करतसे हिहए ्ቚस्तलानवत नकरला गरला हिवै। सइंगत /्ቚचजलत शलासनिलादसेशोረ ककी ्ቚलानवधलाननित व्रवस्थिला कसे अनिबुरूप 60/62 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 58/60 वरर ककी अजधवररतला पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌक कमो हिቦኍ उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) अनिबुमन्र हिवै। शቦኍ कललाम उ्ሹ शतर/्ቚनतबन्ध ससे आचስኌलानदत निहिीሻ हिवै, जजसकसे कलारण उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) ककी अनिबुमन्रतला कला शलासनिलादसेनशक आधलार/औनचत्र स्प्ቖ निहिीሻ हिवै। अततः 60 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु पर ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ हिमोनिसे वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 58 वरर पर नवकल्प चरनि करनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌकोረ तथिला 62 वरर ककी अजधवररतला आरबु वलालसे नश्ቌकोረ कमो 60 वरर पर नवकल्प चरनि करनिसे वलालसे नवकल्पधलारቦኍ नश्ቌकोረ कमो हिቦኍ उपलादलानि ककी सबुनवधला सइंगत /्ቚचजलत शलासनिलादसेशोረ मम अनिबुमन्र हिवै। इसकसे अनतरर्ሹ अन्र आरबु वरर पर सहिलारतला ्ቚला्቎ नश्ቌण सइंस्थिलानि ससे स्ववैचचስኌक ससेवलाननिववृ्ቈ अध्रलापकोረ कमो उपलादलानि (गसेचरबुटቦኍ) अनिबुमन्रतला नवररक शलासनिलादसेश कलारलारलर मम अ्ቕतनि उपलब्ध निहिीሻ हिवै। पमशनि ननिदसेशलालर कसे प्ቔ मम सइंगत शलासनिलादसेश ककी ्ቚनत सनहित ्ቚकरण उपलब्ध करलानिसे कला उलसेख नकरला गरला हिवै जजसससे ्ቚकरण परቦኍ्ቌणमोपरलाइंत ननिस्तलारण नकरला जला सकसे ।"

5. It is on the basis of the aforesaid note put up by the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj that the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj has refused to re-consider his stand that gratuity may be payable to the petitioner though he has prematurely elected to retire at the age of 57 years 4 months and 16 days. For one he may clarify that the age of a retiring employee is never to be reckoned in terms of days and months. It is to be reckoned in terms of the completed age. Thus, so long as an employee does not turn fifty-eight, he is to be regarded as fifty-seven years old. The petitioner, therefore, is an employee, who has chosen to retire at the age of fifty-seven years. Prematurely.

6. The Government Orders, under reference or rules, which these orders reflect or amplify, give effect to a scheme wherein a teacher, who serves for an extended tenure up to sixty-two years is deprived of his gratuity to which he would be entitled, if he were to retire at the conventional age of sixty years. He looses gratuity because he serves for two years more beyond the conventional years.

7. Here is a case, where the petitioner has chosen to retire at the age of fifty-seven years, prematurely. The option to retire at the age of sixty years is to be understood in contra-distinction to the option to retire at the unconventional and the higher age of sixty-two; it is not to be understood as an option vesting a teacher with a right to receive gratuity only if he elects to retire at sixty. 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. Rather, if he chooses to serve, as already said, beyond the conventional age of sixty years, he is divested of that right for the extra remuneration of two years in regular service that he receives. The interpretation, based on the relevant Government Orders by the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, is the product of what is conventionally called 'treading the beaten path', which shows utter lack of application of mind and non-understanding of principle.

8. In future, the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow will bear these remarks of ours in mind and pass appropriate orders so that these kind of perverse interpretations are not placed by the officials functioning in the Department of Secondary Education to the prejudice of teachers vis-a-vis their valuable right to receive gratuity to which they are otherwise entitled.

9. 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.

10. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.12.2023, passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj, is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to sanction and calculate gratuity to the petitioner, of course, taking into account the total number of completed years of service rendered by him before prematurely retiring. The reckoning of the petitioner's entitlement to gratuity shall be done within a period of fifteen days hence and gratuity determined shall be paid to the petitioner within next fifteen days thereafter.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P., Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, the Joint Director (Pension), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj and the District Minority Welfare Officer, Prayagraj through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours." From perusal of the record, it is clear that the controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical as in the case of Sehrun Nisha (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The respondent is at liberty to pass fresh order, if so advice. the petitioner may make Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing application/representation, ventilating all her grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the respondent no.3- Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Agra Region, Agra, within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, in the light of Sehrun Nisha (supra), by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad