Having permitted her to serve the extended period, it held, the authorities could not rely on that very continuation to withhold her retiral dues.

Justice Irshad Ali held,

“Thus, the circumstance which has been relied upon for denying gratuity is, in substance, the very circumstance which enabled the petitioner to render further service to the institution.”

Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Tahtaniya level) in Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Merajul Uloom, Faizabad on 16.08.1992 and retired on 31.03.2019. Her gratuity was not released despite repeated representations to the District Minority Welfare Officer and the higher authorities. She approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7351 (S/S) of 2020, disposed of on 15.02.2023 with a direction to make a comprehensive representation to the Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare Department.

The representation was rejected by order dated 13.09.2023 solely on the ground that she had not opted to retire at 60 and had retired after attaining the age of 62. Challenging it, petitioner relied on the order dated 01.10.2024 of the Lucknow Bench in University College Ret. Teachers Welfare Asso. Lko. v. State of U.P., which quashed Government Orders to the extent they denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue for the extended period, and on the Supreme Court's order in State of U.P. v. Smt. Priyanka.

The respondents defended the order on the footing that madarsa service conditions are governed by Government Orders issued from time to time, that the option had not been filed within the prescribed period, and that petitioner had in any case served up to 62 years with session benefits and been paid all other admissible dues.

The Court held that a reference to those orders and the missing option could not by itself settle entitlement, once the same ground had been examined by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Payment of the other dues was no answer.

“Payment of other retiral or service dues cannot, by itself, amount to a valid determination that gratuity was not payable. Gratuity constitutes a distinct retiral benefit and its denial must have a sustainable legal foundation.”

The decision in Writ-A No. 5724 of 2024 having come after the impugned order, the Court clarified that it was not applying that judgment as creating a new right from the date it was delivered, but to test the legality of the basis on which the benefit had been refused. Nothing, it held, had been shown to distinguish petitioner from the employees whose claims had been upheld.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 13.09.2023 quashed. The competent authority was directed to determine and release the gratuity payable on her qualifying service within three months of a certified copy being produced, without treating the non-exercise of option as a ground for denial, with interest at 6% per annum from 31.03.2019 till actual payment.