Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10453 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 21.11.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the department concerned, whereby petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity and sessions benefit has been rejected.
Facts, which are not in issue, are that petitioner being a Principal was to continue in employment till the age of 60 years. Petitioner was born in the year 1953. Under the relevant scheme, a person, who opts for retirement at the age of 60 years is entitled to payment of gratuity and in case such an option is not exercised, the teacher/principal would continue in service till 62 years. To those teachers who continued to work till the age of 62 years gratuity is not payable. In the facts of the present case, petitioner had not exercised his option to retire at the age of 60 years and he was therefore allowed to continue till the age of 62 years.
Under the policy introduced pursuant to CBSE's circular, those teachers who received a national award are entitled to further extension of service upto the age of 65 years. Petitioner has been granted a national award in the year 2008, and therefore, such benefit of extension in service upto the age of 65 years is granted to petitioner. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to payment of gratuity and also sessions benefit for the reason that his continuance in service upto the age of 65 years is in terms of the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 and the mere fact that he had not exercised his option to receive gratuity would not be relevant. Sessions benefit has also been claimed.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel for the reasons recorded in the order impugned.
Having examined the respective submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the payment of gratuity to a teacher is dependent upon fulfilment of conditions specified in the scheme itself. Under the scheme the teacher would have to opt for retirement at the age of 60 years. In case such an option is not exercised, it would be presumed that teacher intends to continue till age of 62 years and in that event he would not be entitled to gratuity. Petitioner admittedly had completed 60 years in 2013 and was allowed to continue beyond 60 years, as he did not opt for retirement at the age of 60 years. It is during the continuance of petitioner after attaining 61 years that a Government Order has been issued in the year 2014, granting extension of service upto the age of 65 years to the persons who achieved national award and benefits of such government order has admittedly been extended to the petitioner. In such circumstances, petitioner, by his express conduct has given up his right to receive gratuity. Petitioner's continuance after 2013 clearly shows that he had opted to continue till 62 years. The extension in service to a national award winner, therefore, would be of limited avail and would permit the petitioner to continue only upto the age of 65 years. No other benefit would be available to him. Once the Government Order, whereby extension in age is allowed upto the age of 65 years, does not provide for any sessions benefit, the order passed by the State would not require any interference.
Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Ashok Kr.