Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 486 (MP)

Vinaya Rassay v. State of M. P.

2019-07-05

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2018; whereby, the petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity amount, has been rejected by the State. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as teacher in the respondent No. 2/School on 5.8.1974 and after serving for the continuous period of about 35 years, the petitioner retired on 16.4.2011. The petitioner is now claiming the benefit of gratuity from the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation, but the same has not been decided so far. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is undisputed that the respondent No. 2 is an aided institution. The petitioner's right to receive the gratuity amount is also not in dispute, but the contention of the State is that the respondent No. 2 School has to pay the amount. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue in respect of entitlement of gratuity amount to the similarly place person has already been decided by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed that this controversy has already been settled by the order dated 21.6.2017 passed in W.P. No. 6492/2011 in the case of Sewaram Parasar v. State of M.P. and another, and in connected writ petitions by the Gwalior Bench by holding as under : "17. The question of payment of, continuation of, grantinaid to non-governmental educational institutions is not in tenebrosity because the Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 636/2004 (State of M.P. and Another v. Sharique A. Ali and others) has decided the controversy while passing the order dated 7.1.2014 wherein those teachers/ employees who were appointed prior to 1.4.2000 are treated under the umbrella of M.P. Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, (20 of 1978) and the amendment made by the State Government through amendment Act, 2000 will not come in the way of teachers appointed before 1.4.2000. Consequently, the State of M.P. issued a notification /order dated 28.2.2015 in this regard and clarified the status of persons like present petitioners. Consequently, the State of M.P. issued a notification /order dated 28.2.2015 in this regard and clarified the status of persons like present petitioners. Now the persons who are being appointed prior to 1.4.2000 shall be continue to be covered by the Act of 1978 as well as M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sansthan (Adhyapako Thatha Anya Karmchariyo Ke Vetno Ka Sandhaya) (Institutional Fund) Rules, 1983 and the benefits flowing out of the said provisions. The Act of 1978 and the Rules of 1983 are exhaustive code regarding governance of grant-in-aided institutions and the provisions of Act of 1978 and Rules of 1983 as well as provisions of Act of 1972 if are seen in juxtaposition to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Sharique A. Ali (supra) and Sanatan Dharam (supra) and M/s Yeshwant Gramin (supra) as well as order dated 30.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of J.C. Mills Educational Institution (supra), then the claim of the petitioners to receive the gratuity from the State of M.P. is established. 18. Even otherwise, by the effect of Act of 1978 and Rules of 1983, grant-in-aided institutions are working as the extended arms of the State Government to impart higher education. A noble cause with a novel idea devised by the Sate Government in the field of higher education but off late, somehow given a decent burial by the compelling circumstances, still the employees/ teachers who were appointed prior to 1.4.2000 cannot be left at the mercy of management of the grant-inaided institutions. State of M.P. has to pay the gratuity to the teachers/ employees of granting-aided institutions like the present petitioners/ employees /teachers who are appointed prior to .1.4.2000 under the Act of 1972. Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioners stands allowed and disposed of accordingly." 7. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of gratuity amount from the respondent No. 1/State Government. 8. Counsel for the respondent State referred to the order dated 3.4.2018 passed in WP No.1797/2016 (Shri Yogendra Shukla v. School Education Department and others) has submitted that on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.1.2015 passed in the Contempt Petition No. 359/2014, the State has time upto 1.10.2019 to pay the amount. 8. Counsel for the respondent State referred to the order dated 3.4.2018 passed in WP No.1797/2016 (Shri Yogendra Shukla v. School Education Department and others) has submitted that on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.1.2015 passed in the Contempt Petition No. 359/2014, the State has time upto 1.10.2019 to pay the amount. In WP No.1797/2016, the Coordinate Bench by taking note of the order of the Supreme Court has held as under : "The petitioner was appointed in the institution run by respondent No. 4 against the Grant-in-aid post. The petitioner has already retired from service in the year 2006. Before retirement, he was paid wages @ 50% in compliance of the order passed by the apex Court. After the decision by the apex Court in case of Sharique Ali and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2002 (1) MPHT 315 the State Government is liable to pay the arrears of 50% of the salary to him from 2000 to 2004 (till the aid was given to the respondent No.4) as per 5th Pay Commission. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that of 50% arrears has not been paid to him by the Court. The respondent No. 1 to 3 have filed the return by submitting that the entire arrears to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons would be paid on or before 1.10.2019 as per the directions by the apex Court in Contempt Petition No. 359/2014 decided on 15.1.2015. Relevant portion of the order passed by the apex Court is reproduced below: "7. Accordingly, we now direct the State Government to pay the aforesaid amounts, as indicated in their memo/note, in five annual installments commencing from the dates as indicated in the memo/note. Further, the amount of Rs. 306 crores, as payable as arrears under the 5th Pay commission Scale, shall be paid on or before 1.10.2019." In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as the petitioner would be paid entire arrears admissible as per law on or before 1.10.2019." 9. In view of the aforesaid order, it is not disputed before this Court that the respondent State has been given time upto 1.10.2019 to pay the amount. 10. In view of the aforesaid order, it is not disputed before this Court that the respondent State has been given time upto 1.10.2019 to pay the amount. 10. The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order reproduced above. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.