The Supreme Court ruled that aided school teachers aren’t entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972; their retiral benefits are governed by state service rules under Article 309. Nominees can claim benefits under these rules without a legal heirship certificate.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that teachers in aided schools are, for all practical purposes, equivalent to government employees.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran noted that since these posts are government-sanctioned and the teachers receive government-funded salaries, they are entitled to service conditions similar to those of government teachers.
This includes benefits such as pension, provident fund, and gratuity, governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, being the son of a deceased teacher from an aided school, sought gratuity as the legal heir under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, his claim was dismissed by both the original and appellate authorities under the Act, as well as by the High Court.
He has now approached the Supreme Court challenging these rejections. The petitioner has appeared in person, while the respondent is represented by Advocate Satyajit A. Desai.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
The petitioner, arguing his case in person, stated that the school had already settled the General Provident Fund in his name, identifying him as the nominee, making a legal heirship certificate unnecessary.
He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand, which affirmed that teachers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
This ruling overruled the earlier decision in Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer, which had supported the government’s claim that service rules under Article 309 of the Constitution applied instead.
The petitioner further argued that, in the absence of a specific exemption for schools in Maharashtra, the Gratuity Act remains applicable, and the exemption under Rule 4(5) does not hold since the benefits under the Act are more favorable than those provided under the 1982 Rules.
Respondent:
The Government Advocate argued that since the school is government-aided, its employees receive salaries and retirement benefits, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to benefits under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner’s father is still alive and is also a legal heir of the deceased teacher.
Hence, a legal heir certificate is necessary, and the father’s claim must also be considered. The High Court had already directed the government to process the claim promptly, based on its assurance to do so once the required documents were submitted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court observed that teachers in aided schools are effectively equivalent to state government employees, as their posts are either sanctioned or approved by the government, and their salaries and benefits are government-funded.
These teachers are entitled to similar service conditions, including pension, provident fund, and gratuity, as outlined in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court clarified that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, gratuity is payable after five years of continuous service, except in cases of death or disablement. However, under the 1982 Rules, gratuity (DCRG) is payable upon cessation of service without any minimum service requirement, and the amount is generally higher than what is offered under the 1972 Act. It said,
“While DCRG under the Rules of 1982 is payable to the Government employee, at any time his services cease without the minimum limit of five years service. Further, on death prior to the minimum period, the gratuity payable under the Rules of 1982 is far more than that applicable under the Act of 1972…”
The Court added,
“Further, it must be noticed that the Government servants, including the teachers in the Government schools, would be entitled to gratuity under the Rules of 1982, and there cannot be a situation where the teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different computation of gratuity under the Act of 1972. It is also to be emphasised that the Rules of 1982 enable not only DCRG but also pension to the employees covered under the Rules of 1982, which a person entitled to the gratuity under the Act of 1972 may not be entitled in all circumstances.”
The Government Advocate argued that the petitioner had failed to submit a legal heirship certificate, which was necessary since the deceased teacher’s husband was still alive. The petitioner countered that the husband was estranged and had long been separated from the deceased. The Court said,
“Be that as it may, a mere estrangement would not disentitle the husband from the benefits due to the family of a deceased employee.”
It was also noted that the petitioner had already received provident fund dues as a nominee designated by his late mother. Considering the facts, the Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to apply for DCRG under the 1982 Rules. He must also submit a notarised affidavit indemnifying the government and the managing society against any future claims from other legal heirs.
Appearance Appellant
Petitioner-in-person
Respondent: Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Ananya Thapliyal, AOR Anagha S. Desai, Advocate Pratik Kumar Singh, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
Case Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress, Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. And Distt. Wardha & Ors
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.19436 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Government Schools
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
