A .K.SIKRI C.J. - (1.) Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 169 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 herein joined the services of the appellant as Resident Medical Officer on 23.01.1990. He worked there up to 17.03.2011 when he submitted his resignation from the post of Professor, on which post he was working at that time. Initially, the resignation of the respondent was not accepted and the appellants served him a charge -sheet for remaining absent from the duty. After service of this charge -sheet, the respondent herein filed a writ petition in this Court seeking mandamus that he was entitled to submit his resignation and the appellants had no right to reject the same. As a consequence, he also sought the relief of payment of gratuity and leave encashment. No written statement to this writ petition was filed by the appellants herein and the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge. During the course of arguments, it was conceded by the appellants that the appellants had dropped the departmental proceedings against the respondent herein. It amounted to accepting the resignation of the respondent, which even otherwise could not have been rejected. The only ground which is raised before us is that as per Clause 13.2 of the Panjab University Calendar, an employee should have rendered 20 years service as teacher before moving an application for voluntary retirement. In the present case, without going into this issue, even otherwise the respondent had rendered more than 20 years of service. Be as it may, once the resignation is accepted, the gratuity becomes payable. The learned Single Judge has ordered accordingly relying upon various judgments of this Court which have followed the Supreme Court judgments.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argues that a teacher is not covered by Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 ( for short 'the Act'). We are constrained to observe that even in the earlier judgments rendered against the colleges/educational institutions whereby the gratuity was held to be payable to the teachers as well and the colleges/educational institutions had complied with those judgments, the appellants have audacity to raise such an argument which conduct is not accepted being an educational institution. Even otherwise, definition of an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act stands amended retrospectively w.e.f. 1997 vide Amendment No. 15 of 2010 and the teacher is included in the definition of an employee. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -. The costs shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.;