Thr Director School Education, Ut Chandigarh And Anr vs Ashok Lata And Ors.

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
[Sr. No.116]
(1) LPA-2067-2026(O&M)
The Director School Education, U.T. Chandigarh and
Another ......Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ashok Lata and others .....Respondents
(2) LPA-2068-2026(O&M)
The Director School Education, U.T. Chandigarh and
Another ......Appellants
Versus
Sh. Balvinder Singh and others .....Respondents
Reserved on : 25.08.2026
Pronounced on : 09.09.2026
Uploaded on : 10.09.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced :Full Judgment
Whether there is delay in uploading the judgment : NA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present: Ms. Sukhmani T. Patwalia, Advocate,
Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh and
Mr. Dhruv Walia, Advocate, Junior Panel Counsel, U.T.
Chandigarh, for the appellants.

RAJESH GAUR , J.
CM-5014-LPA-2026 in LPA-2067-2026
CM-5017-LPA-2026 in LPA-2068-2026
1. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of
delay of 317 days in filing the accompanying appeals.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are
allowed and the delay of 317 days in filing the accompanying appeals, is
hereby condoned.
LPA-2067-2026 & LPA-2068-2026
1. This singular order shall dispose of both above-noted appeals,
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
as there is a commonality of facts as well as the legal issue. These appeals

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [2]
are arising out of a common judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the present appeal i.e. LPA
No.2067 of 2026, respondent No.1, namely, Smt. Ashok Lata wife of
Sanjeev Raghuwanshi is that she was initially appointed as a ‘ Hindi Teacher ’
on contract basis at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sector 23-
A, Chandigarh @ Rs.2200/- per month, vide appointment order dated
06.01.1999 (Annexure P-1). A perusal of the said appointment order dated
06.01.1999, reveals that her initial appointment was for a maximum period
of 89 days or till the regular arrangements are made, whichever is earlier.
She continued serving the Education Department from time to time and
remained in service till 31.03.2020. After completion of her service,
respondent No.1-Smt. Ashok Lata, raised a claim by way of a claim petition
filed under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘ the Act of 1972’ ), before the Controlling Authority in the year
2021. She claimed Rs.5,90,116/- as gratuity amount for the period from
06.01.1999 to 31.03.2020.
3. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 29.08.2023
(Annexure P-2) allowed her claim petition. A bare perusal of the said order
dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), shows that the Controlling Authority
considered the service record of respondent No.1 and allowed her claim. She
was held entitled to Rs.5,90,116/- as gratuity amount with interest @ 9% per
annum from the due date i.e. 01.05.2020, till the date of actual payment.
Documents from Govt. Schools where respondent No.1 had served, were
examined, including the attendance record, salary record, joining and
relieving orders as well as other relevant documents. On consideration
thereof, the Controlling Authority recorded that her contractual arrangement
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [3]
had been extended from time to time and that notwithstanding certain
notional breaks, she had completed 21 years 02 months and 25 days of
service period. Considering the last drawn wages were Rs.48,708/-,
therefore, Controlling Authority held her entitled to gratuity amount of
Rs.5,90,116/- along with interest.
4. The appellant(s) preferred an appeal against the order dated
29.08.2023 (Annexure P-2). Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, an
application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Appellate Authority
vide order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the appeal on the
ground of delay. The appellant(s), thereafter, filed CWP No.22442 of 2025,
titled as “The Director School Education, U.T. Chandigarh and another
Vs. Smt. Ashok Lata and Others”.
5. In other connected matter i.e. LPA No.2068 of 2026, respondent
No.1, namely, Balvinder Singh was engaged as a Science Teacher (Non-
Medical) on contract basis for the Session 2002-03, vide appointment order
dated 08.11.2002 (Annexure P-1). The terms of engagement provided that
the appointment was purely contractual and further stated that he would not
be entitled to the Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity or other benefits
available to the Government Servants appointed on regular basis. He
continued to serve the department and rendered service of 16 years, 10
months and 22 days. His last drawn wages were Rs. 48,708/- per month. His
claim for gratuity was allowed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated
01.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) and an amount of Rs. 4,59,617/- alongwith
interest was awarded to him.
6. Similarly, the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 7(4)
of the Act of 1972, against the order dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) was
dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [4]
P-3) on the ground of delay. Appellant(s), thereafter, filed CWP No.22441 of
2025, titled as “The Director School Education, U.T. Chandigarh and
another Vs. Balvinder Singh and Others”.
7. These CWP No.22442 of 2025, CWP No.22441 of 2025, came
to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a common
judgment dated 05.08.2025.
8. The learned Single Judge noticed that under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, an appeal against the order of Controlling Authority is to
be filed within a period of 60 days and Appellate Authority can condone the
delay for a further period of 60 days. Since the appeal filed by the present
applicant/appellant was beyond the maximum period of 120 days, it was
held by the Appellate Authority that it did not have power to condone the
delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act of 1972. Accordingly, no
ground for interference was found and the writ petitions were dismissed by
the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeals.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
respondent No.1 in both appeals had been appointed purely on contractual
basis and neither of them was ever appointed as a regular employee in the
Education Department. The terms and conditions were accepted by
respondent No.1 and, therefore, they could not subsequently claim benefits,
which were available to the regular employees. Particular reference has been
made to appointment order dated 08.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) in the case of
respondent No.1-Balvinder Singh, wherein, it was mentioned that he would
not be entitled to any benefits like Provident Fund, Pension, Gratuity or any
other benefits admissible to Govt. Servants appointed on regular basis. It is
further submitted that Controlling Authority could not have granted gratuity,
contrary to the terms of contractual appointment.
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [5]
10. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants and have gone through the records with their able assistance.
11. There is no dispute that initial appointment of respondents No.1
in the aforesaid appeals, was on contractual basis and it is also not disputed
that they were not appointed as regular employees. However, in our view,
the question, which requires consideration is not whether respondent No.1 in
both appeals, are to be treated as a regular employee. Limited question is
whether they could be entitled the benefit of gratuity despite the long period
of service actually rendered by them merely because their appointments
were described as contractual.
12. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice
Section 4 of the Act of 1972, which deals with the payment of gratuity. The
relevant provision is reproduced as under:-
“(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the
termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous
service for not less than five years,-(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of
five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the
employment of any employee is due to death or disablement:
[Provided further that in the case of death of the
employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if
no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such
nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be
deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same
for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial
institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.]
2. For every completed year of service or part thereof in
excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee
at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
drawn by the employee concerned:

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [6]
Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee,
daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages
received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding
the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages
paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account:
Provided further that in the case of [an employee who
is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed
throughout the year], the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate
of seven days' wages for each season.
3. The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall
not exceed [such amount as may be notified by the Central
Government from time to time].
4. For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to
an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced
wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be
taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his
wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to
be the wages as so reduced;
5. Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an
employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or
agreement or contract with the employer.
6. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-
(a) The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been
terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any
damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the
employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so
caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or
partially forfeited]
(i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for
his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his
part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for
any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude,
provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his
employment.”
13. It would also be appropriate to refer to Section 2A of the
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which deals with the concept of continuous

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [7]
service. The relevant provision is reproduced hereunder:-
“2A. Continuous service.

- For the purposes of this Act,-
(1) An employee shall be said to be in continuous
service for a period if he has, for that period, been in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be
interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence
from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which
an order] [treating the absence as break in service has been
passed in accordance with the standing orders, rules or
regulations governing the employees of the establishment),
lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any
fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or
interrupted service was rendered before or after the
commencement of this Act.
(2) Where an employee (not being an employee
employed in a seasonal establishment) is not in continuous
service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous
service under the employer-
(a) for the said period of one year, if the employee
during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has
actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) one hundred and ninety days, in the case of an
employee employed below the ground in a mine or in an
establishment which works for less than six days in a week;
and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for the said period of six months, if the employee
during the period of six calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which the calculation is to be made, has
actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of an employee
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
employed below the ground in a mine or in an establishment

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [8]
which works for less than six days in a week; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
14. A reading of the aforesaid provisions show that the entitlement
of gratuity is attached with the service rendered by the employee. Sub-
Section (1) of Section 2A stipulates a minimum continuous service for not
less than 05 years whereas sub-section (2) provides the manner in which the
amount of gratuity is to be calculated. The provision does not stipulate that
an employee must necessarily hold a regular post before he can claim
gratuity. Therefore, merely describing an appointment as contractual, would
not by itself be sufficient to deny gratuity where the employee falls within
the ambit of the Act of 1972, and satisfies the requirement of continuous
service.
15. We may also refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neta Ram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattishgarh & Anr., (2018) 5 SCC 430 . In
the said case, the employee has initially rendered about 22 years of service
as a daily wager and his services were thereafter regularized. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court had held that his earlier period of service could not be
ignored while considering his entitlement for gratuity. It was also observed
that as continuous service stood established, the employee could not be
denied his legitimate claim of gratuity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also
noticed that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a welfare legislation enacted
for the benefit of the employees, who have served their employer for a long
period and that the State should voluntarily pay such statutory benefits rather
than compel an employee to approach the Court for his genuine claim.
16. The aforesaid principle squarely applies to the case of
respondent No.1-Smt. Ashok Lata in LPA No.2067 of 2026. Her
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
appointment order dated 06.01.1999 (Annexure P-1), shows that initially she

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [9]
was appointed on contract basis for a period of 89 days and her engagement
was extended from time to time. She continued to serve the Education
Department for two decades. The Controlling Authority after examining the
attendance record, salary record and other service record, recorded a specific
finding vide order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) that she has completed
21 years, 02 months and 25 days of service notwithstanding certain notional
breaks.
17. Once the aforesaid finding recorded in order dated 29.08.2023
(Annexure P-2), is considered in the light of Section 4 of the Act of 1972
and principle noticed here-in-above, we find that there is no reason to deny
gratuity to respondent No.1 merely because her initial appointment was
contractual and her engagement, which was initially for 89 days, was
continued by the concerned department from time to time for about 21 years.
The concerned department continued to take work from her during all these
years. The nature of initial appointment, therefore, cannot by itself defeat
statutory benefits, if the requirement of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,
otherwise stands fulfilled. The Controlling Authority after taking her last
drawn wages of Rs.48,708/- and the period of service proved on record
calculated the gratuity amount of Rs.5,90,116/- along with interest. We find
no reason to interfere with the said findings.
18. The case of respondent No.1-Balvinder Singh in LPA No.2068
of 2026, is also to be considered on the same principle. His initial
engagement, vide appointment order dated 08.11.2002 (Annexure P-1), was
contractual and contained a condition regarding non-payment of gratuity and
certain other benefits available to the regular govt. employees. However, he
continued to serve the concerned department for about 16 years, 10 months
and 22 days. His claim was allowed by the Controlling Authority vide order
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-2067-2026(O&M) and other connected case [10]
dated 01.08.2023 (Annexure P-2). He had rendered much beyond the
maximum period contemplated under the Act of 1972, thus, merely because
his initial appointment was contractual, would not by itself be sufficient to
deny him the statutory benefits of gratuity.
19. We may clarify that we are not holding these respondents
become regular employee merely because they continued in service for a
long period. The issue of regularization does not arise before us. The
question is confined to the entitlement for the gratuity. The principle which
emerges is that the nature of initial appointment being contractual, cannot be
looked in isolation and the long and continuous service actually rendered by
an employee has also to be considered for determining the statutory
entitlement under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In the present matters,
Smt. Ashok Lata rendered service for about 21 years whereas Sh. Balvinder
Singh rendered service for more than 16 years.
20. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the orders passed
by the respective competent authorities as well as learned Single Judge in
both the appeals. In view of the above, even on merits, no case is made out
for interfering with the common judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by
learned Single Judge of this Court in both matters.
21. Consequently, the aforesaid appeals are hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs.
22. All Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed
of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL ) (RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE JUDGE


09.09.2026
Anjal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 18:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document