Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Aided School Teacher Is Akin To A Post Under State Government For All Practical Purposes: Supreme Court
|The Petition before the Supreme Court was filed by the son of a teacher in an aided school, who died while in service.
The Supreme Court observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government.
The Court observed that the aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “A teacher in an aided school for all practical purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. Pertinent is the fact that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India."
Petitioner appeared in-person while Advocate Satyajit A. Desai represented the Respondent.
Arguments
In this case, the petitioner is the son of a teacher in an aided school, who died while in service. The petitioner, as the legal heir claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but the same was rejected by the original and appellate authorities as well as the High Court.
It was the Petitioner’s case that the school had settled the General Provident Fund dues in his name clearly mentioning him as nominee and the question of legal heirship certificate never arose. It was contended that without an exemption with respect to the schools in Maharashtra, the Gratuity Act cannot be made inapplicable.
On the contrary, the Respondent submitted that being an aided school, the employees are paid pay & allowances, while in service, by the Government so is the pensionary benefits including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) paid under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982 brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that there was no question of the petitioner being paid amounts under the Act of 1972.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, noted that a teacher in an aided school, for all practical purposes, is akin to a post under the State Government and the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution.
It was further noted that the payment of gratuity as per the Act of 1972 is payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after rendering continuous service for not less than five years; the minimum limit of five years is not applicable only when the termination is due to death or disablement. “While DCRG under the Rules of 1982 is payable to the Government employee, at any time his services cease without the minimum limit of five years-service. Further, on death prior to the minimum period, the gratuity payable under the Rules of 1982 is far more than that applicable under the Act of 1972…”, it said.
“Further it must be noticed that the Government servants including the teachers in the Government schools would be entitled to gratuity under the Rules of 1982 and there cannot be a situation where the teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different computation of gratuity under the Act of 1972. It is also to be emphasised that the Rules of 1982 enables not only DCRG but also pension to the employees covered under the Rules of 1982, which a person entitled to the gratuity under the Act of 1972 may not be entitled in all circumstances”, it added.
The Government Advocate contended that the required documents had not been produced, especially the legal heirship certificate, in the context of the husband of the deceased teacher still being alive. The Petitioner, however, contended that the husband was estranged and they had been separated for long. “Be that as it may, a mere estrangement would not disentitle the husband from the benefits due to the family of a deceased employee”, the Bench said.
It was further noticed that the petitioner had been paid the provident fund dues, for which he was notified as a nominee by the mother when she was alive. In such circumstances, the Bench allowed the Petition and directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent with an application for payment of DCRG in accordance with the Rules of 1982 along with an undertaking to indemnify the Government and the Society which runs the aided school from any claims made by any other legal heir, by a notarised affidavit.
Cause Title: Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. And Distt. Wardha & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 824)
Appearance
Appellant: Petitioner-in-person
Respondent: Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Ananya Thapliyal, AOR Anagha S. Desai, Advocate Pratik Kumar Singh, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande