Full Judgment Text
Reportable
2025 INSC 824
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
J U D G E M E N T
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
1
gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . 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.
2
State of Jharkhand 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
3
(P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer ,
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
4
Rules), 1982 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
2
in Birla Institute of Technology 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
th
equal to ¼ 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
2025 INSC 824
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
J U D G E M E N T
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
1
gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 . 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.
2
State of Jharkhand 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
3
(P) Primary Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer ,
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
4
Rules), 1982 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
2
in Birla Institute of Technology 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
th
equal to ¼ 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