Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.

2025 INSC 824 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.19436 OF 2024

VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE ..PETITIONER VERSUS THE HEADMISTRESS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE, ANJI (MOTHI), TAH. AND DISTT. WARDHA & ORS.

…RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is the son of a teacher in an aided school, who

died while in service. The petitioner as the legal heir claims

gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 1 . The

petitioner’s claim was rejected by the original authority and the

appellate authority under the Act and also the High Court against

which the petitioner is before this Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.07.14 15:48:05 IST Reason: 1 For brevity ‘the Act of 1972’ Page 1 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024

2. The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the

school has settled the General Provident Fund dues in his name

clearly mentioning him as nominee and the question of legal

heirship certificate never arose. Birla Institute of Technology v.

State of Jharkhand 2 clearly held that teachers are eligible for

gratuity under the Act overruling the judgment placed on record

by the learned Government Advocate reported in Ahmedabad

(P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer 3 ,

negativing the case of the Government that rules framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India would apply. It is

contended that without an exemption with respect to the schools

in Maharashtra, the Gratuity Act cannot be made inapplicable.

Further the exemption under sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 does not apply

since the gratuity payable under the Act is far more beneficial

than the scheme under the Rules of 1982.

3. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand

submits 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

2 (2019) 4 SCC 513 3 (2004) 1 SCC 755 Page 2 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 (DCRG) paid under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension

Rules), 19824 brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. There is no question of the petitioner being paid amounts

under the Act of 1972. The petitioner admits that his father is

surviving, who would also be a legal heir of the deceased. The

petitioner hence has to produce a legal heir certificate and the

claim of the father will also have to be dealt with. The High Court

has in fact directed such consideration by the Government, on the

Government’s own undertaking that it would be done

expeditiously on an application being filed with required papers.

4. The petitioner approached the original authority under the

Payment of Gratuity Act who found that there was a difference in

DA, as asserted by the petitioner in his application and the last

pay certificate of the deceased teacher which was produced

before the authority, which makes the claim for DCRG

anomalous. We cannot accept this contention since the DA will

have to be ascertained from the last pay certificate issued by the

employer. It was also held that the Act of 1972 though would be

applicable to teachers, the definition of employee excludes a

person holding a post under the Central Government and State

4 For brevity ‘the Rules of 1982’ Page 3 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 Government; which the teacher was holding while she was in

service. Finding that the petitioner’s mother’s service does not

fall under the Act of 1972, the application was rejected.

5. The appellate authority found the order of the controlling

authority to be perfectly in order. It was also noticed that the

respondent had specifically contended that the petitioner had

never approached the respondents with a proper documentation

as to the death and legitimacy of the claim. Before the High Court,

the respondent submitted that it requires certain documents from

the petitioner for processing the claim, namely, photograph and

the undertaking to indemnify the legitimate claim, if raised by

any other person, on submission of which, the claim would be

processed. A direction was issued to process the claim as

undertaken by the respondent for which the petitioner was

directed to be present before the respondent.

6. On the question of the teacher’s entitlement to the

provisions of the Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the decision

in Birla Institute of Technology2 puts to rest any such

controversy. The question here would be not so much the

entitlement to gratuity but as to whether the legal heirs of a

deceased teacher in an aided school would be entitled to gratuity Page 4 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 under the Act of 1972 or under the Rules of 1982. The argument of

the State is that an aided school employee, including a teacher

would be exempted from the definition of an employee under the

Act. Per contra it is argued that the exemption is only to a person

who holds a post under the Central Government or State

Government. An aided school teacher does not hold a post under

the State Government contends the appellant.

7. It must be observed that 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. Though strictly speaking

the teachers may not be holding a post under the State

Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, at

least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in

service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement. Page 5 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024

8. We have to also notice that sub-section (5) makes Section 4

inapplicable, if the employees have a right to receive better

terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with

an employer. When comparing the benefits, the question is not to

be considered in isolation with respect to an employee and

whether he or she would be entitled to higher amounts under the

Act or under the Rules. The scheme has to be considered in toto

for the purpose of determining as to which is more beneficial. The

Act of 1972 prescribes under Section 4(2), gratuity at the rate of

15 days wages based on the last wages drawn for every

completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months.

Insofar as the Rules of 1982 is concerned, gratuity is payable

equal to ¼th of last pay drawn of each completed six monthly

period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 and a

half years. It has to be noticed 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 being 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 Page 6 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 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, which

is as hereunder:

Completed year of death gratuity qualifying service

1 … 2 ½ months’ pay 2 … 5 months’ pay 3 … 7 ½ months’ pay 4 … 10 months’ pay

9. A person entering service though has a normal expectation

of retiring on attaining the age of superannuation but there are

vagaries of fate which would make it otherwise. We have already

seen that on death prior to five years of service the benefits under

the Rules of 1982 would be more beneficial to the dependents of

the employees. 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

Page 7 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 1982, which a person entitled to the gratuity under the Act of 1972

may not be entitled in all circumstances.

10. We are of the opinion that the aided school teachers who

are governed by the service conditions brought out by the State

Government are also covered under the Rules of 1982. The extent

of application as per the Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1982 specifically

makes it applicable to: “Any person for whose appointment and

conditions of employment special provision is made by or under

any law for the time being in force” (sic). There can hence be no

dispute raised on the applicability of the Rules of 1982, insofar as

aided school teachers are concerned whose pay and allowances

and service conditions are regulated by the Government.

11. Now we come to the actual claim raised by the petitioner,

who is the son of the deceased teacher. The Government

Advocate had raised a contention that the required documents

have not been produced, especially the legal heirship certificate,

especially in the context of the husband of the deceased teacher

being still alive. Petitioner, however, contends that the husband

was estranged and they have 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 Page 8 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 petitioner, undisputedly has been paid the provident fund dues,

for which he was notified as a nominee, as seen from the records,

by the mother when she was alive; presumably as indicated from

her service records. We find absolutely no reason to direct the

petitioner to produce a legal heirship certificate since in any case

the payment made to a nominee or one of the legal heirs, when

there are also other legal heirs left behind, is in trust and the

person who receives the payment as a nominee holds the money

in trust for all the others. The nomination made by the deceased

employee while she was alive only absolves the employer from

finding out the different legal heirs for the purpose of making

payments apportioning their separate shares.

12. The death is undisputed and there is no requirement now to

produce the death certificate also. In such circumstances, the

petitioner shall 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. The same shall be

forwarded to the Education Officer, who shall make the payment

expeditiously. We make it clear that the petitioner shall also be Page 9 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024 paid simple interest @ 7% per year, starting from one month of

the date of death of the employee, till the date of payment.

13. The Special Leave Petition is allowed with the above

modification.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

JULY 14, 2025.

Page 10 of 10

SLP (C) No.19436 OF 2024