Writ Petition Has To Be Drafted Carefully, Reliefs Sought Must Be Supported By Pleadings: Allahabad High Court Rejects Claim For Payment Of Gratuity

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a petition must be carefully drafted, disclosing all relevant facts for grant of relief sought by the petitioner.

While dealing with a bunch of cases relating to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that

“In order to make out a case to grant the relief sought, a writ petition has to be drafted very carefully. Pleadings are essential part of any litigation. The relief sought should be supported by pleadings. The present bunch of writ petitions are example of it where the prayers sought are not only vague but not supported by material pleadings also. Even the petitioners have approached this Court by not disclosing entire relevant facts which goes adverse to their case, i.e., petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands.”

Twenty-five petitioners who are either retired employees or husband, father or mother of deceased employees of Basic Education Department approached the High Court seeking release of gratuity amounts along with interest. Some petitioners approached the Court for demand of gratuity dating back to 2002. The main claim of the petitioners was the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will be applicable on Teachers working in Basic Schools.

The Court observed that while making such claims, the petitioners failed to bring on record the relevant Government Orders dated 23.11.1994, 10.06.2002 and 04.02.2004. It was also observed that no explanation as to the delay was given in the petition.

The Court observed that the petitioners had tried to mislead the Court by not attaching the relevant Government Orders which provide that teachers are entitled to gratuity subject to conditions laid therein.

“It is difficult to believe that petitioners have no knowledge about relevant Government Orders whereby gratuity is payable to Teachers in certain conditions, despite they have worked for many years in Primary Schools/ Junior High Schools. Not disclosing the said Government Orders is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court.”

The Court observed that in Birla Institute of Technology (supra) and Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod and others, the Supreme Court has included “teachers working at private institutions” and “Angawadi workers / helpers” within the definition of “employee” as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

The Court held that payment of gratuity has been extended to the teachers working in schools run by Basic Education Board by way of Government orders which do not find mention in the pleading of the petitioners. Only an oral argument was made by the counsel for petitioner regarding their 'repugnancy', however, no reliance was placed on them for claiming the benefit of gratuity.

The Court relied on Dhanraj vs. Vikram Singh and others, wherein the Supreme Court held that in absence of specific challenge to the validity of statutory provisions, the Court cannot go into the argument of their repugnancy. Accordingly, the argument made by the counsel for petitioners was rejected.

Further, the Court observed that in District Basic Education Officer and another vs. Shivkali and others, the Allahabad High Court had upheld the application of the Government Orders with regard to teachers working in respondent's schools. The Court held that since the petitioners had not said anything about the Government Orders in their pleadings, the Court could grant them any relief.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to avail the benefit of the gratuity if they fall within the circular.

Case Title: Smt Usha Verma And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80 [WRIT - A No. - 18971 of 2022]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 80

Appearances: Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, Sri K. Shahi, Sri Shivendra Singh Bhadauriya, Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri C.S. Singh and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma for Respondents-Basic Education Officers; Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Standing Counsel and Mrs. Shruti Malviya, Brief Holder for State-Respondents. Sri Shoar Mohammad Khan, Sri Quazi Mohammad Akram and Sri Tawvab Ahmed Khan for petitioners.

Click Here To Read/Download Order