Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th March, 2023
SAVITA GULATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Mudgil, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Advocates
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, GNCTD with Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and
Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
3. Present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondent No.1 & 2 for the implementation of the Judgment, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 03/08/2021, in the matter of Janardan Sharma vs GNCT of Delhi Through It’s Chief Secretary & Ors., WP(C)/11154/2019, in true letter and spirit by the Respondents, for extending of the benefits of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the Vocational Part-Time Teachers’ working under the Govt. Schools of the GNCT of Delhi; &/or b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondent No.1 & 2 to release the payment of the Gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amended upto date), to the Petitioner; &/or c) Pass an appropriate order, or direction to dispose of the instant Petition in terms of the Judgment, passed by this Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 03/08/2021, in the matter of Janardan Sharma vs GNCT of Delhi Through It’s Chief Secretary & Ors., WP(C)/11154/2019;”
4. Facts in the present case are in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed by the Respondents on 25.08.1988 as part-time Vocational Health Care & Beauty Culture Teacher. Vide Notification dated 07.08.1995, Recruitment Rules for posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Vocational) were notified in various Vocational courses. On 31.12.2009, amendment was made in the definition of the word ‘employee’ as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by amending Act No. 47 of 2009 published on 31.12.2009 with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997. The impact of the amendment was that Teachers are now entitled to claim Gratuity under the said Act from their respective employers.
5. Petitioner retired on superannuation on 13.06.2021 after attaining the age of 60 years albeit without any terminal benefit. A significant development took place in 2021 when this Court passed a judgment on 03.08.2021 in Janardan Sharma v. GNCT of Delhi Through It’s Chief Secretary & Ors., W.P.(C) 11154/2019, wherein the Court rendered a finding that the Act does not draw a distinction between a full-time employee/a part-time employee/ad hoc employee etc. and therefore even a part-time employee would be entitled to Gratuity under the Act. Direction was given to the Respondents therein/Government of NCT of Delhi to pay Gratuity to the Petitioner with interest @ 6 % p.a. within eight weeks and costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-.
6. Following the judgment in Janardan Sharma (supra), this Court allowed a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(C) 13761/2022 & others on 17.11.2022 in Anuradha Seem v. Directorate of Education & Anr., and directed the Respondents to extend the benefits of the said decision.
7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Petitioner was a part-time Vocational Banking Teacher and worked in the Schools of the Directorate of Education from 1988 till her retirement on 13.06.2021 and has been deprived of Gratuity for her distinguished and dedicated service of over 32 years. The right of the Petitioner to receive Gratuity now stands crystallized by the judgments of this Court and there is no reason why the Gratuity should not be released to her.
8. Issue notice.
9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2 on an advance copy of the writ petition, does not dispute the fact that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in Janardan Sharma (supra) and Anuradha Seem (supra), on all four corners. She, however, points out that a large number of employees are now entitled for grant of Gratuity and calculations of the amounts payable, taking into account various factors such as the number of years of service, methodology of calculation of fraction of a year etc. in accordance with the provisions of the Act is a time consuming exercise and work is in progress. It is therefore submitted that a period of eight weeks be given to the Respondents to calculate and disburse the arrears of Gratuity to the Petitioner, in accordance with the Act.
10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to calculate and release the amounts payable to the Petitioner towards Gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court in Janardan Sharma (supra) and Anuradha Seem (supra).
11. As assured by Ms. Ahlawat, the entire exercise shall be carried out and completed within a period of eight weeks from today. The calculations of the amounts disbursed shall be furnished to the Petitioner and in case of any surviving grievance Petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law.
12. Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.