- (1.) Writ- A No. 31744 of 2011, Rehmat Ullah Khan Vs. Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, and others, was preferred by the petitioner- appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. By the said order the petitioner- appellant had been informed that no amount is admissible to him towards gratuity and that entire amount, which was liable to be paid, had already been paid to him.
(2.) The court after noting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and of the counsel for the respondent Bundelkhand University held that:- "Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a social welfare legislation and same deserves liberal interpretation and as per the same as pension scheme which is applicable in the University concerned does not provide for payment of gratuity, same cannot be compared with gratuity payable under the Act, in view of this as Section 14 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has a over-riding effect, the University is obliged to pay the gratuity under Section 4 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the absence of any exemption obtained under Section 5 (1) of the said Act and such obligation to pay the gratuity continues to exist and accordingly present writ petition deserves to be allowed...."
(3.) After noting the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Neeraj Tiwari, the Court further held that "petitioner is not at all entitled for gratuity under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as petitioner does not fall within the definition of employee as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as petitioner has been holding the post in question under the State Government and is governed by the other set of rules providing for payment of gratuity and in view of this claim in question is not acceptable and coupled with this it has also been stated that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a self contained act and in case petitioner claims that he is entitled for gratuity under the said act whereas the University is resisting the said claim, then such issue at the first instance has to be examined within the parameters of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Controlling Authority, who has been conferred with wide authority under Section 7 (4) (A) of the said Act, in view of this present writ petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court." "In exercise of authority vested under Section 33 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the State Government has issued order for ensuring payment of post retiral benefits Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 has been enforced and as per the same different benefits have been extended on opting for retirement at the age of 58 years and 60 years. The incumbents who opted to retire at the age of 58 years, they were entitled for pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity, family pension, general provident fund and the incumbents, who opted to retire at the age of 60 years, they were entitled for pension, family pension and general provident fund. The petitioner as per the Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 was mandatorily required to fill up the option form mentioning therein that whether he wanted to continue under the old scheme or wanted to continue with the scheme of pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity, family pension, general provident fund and thereafter petitioner had given his option. The said Government Order dated 24th January, 1984 has been modified on 18th November, 2004 and as per the said modification choice of option has been closed and it has been resolved to provide gratuity and other post retiral benefits and the date of superannuation had been decided to 60 years. Petitioner has been paid the benefits as per the option which has been filled up by him and his precise contention is that he is entitled for payment of gratuity also under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but the same has been arbitrarily turned down by the Registrar of the University concerned. Petitioner's submission before this Court is that law on the said subject stands clarified in the case of Allahabad Bank & another Vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employee Association, 2010 2 SCC 44 and in view of this payment of gratuity be ensured.";