Service Period Prior to Quashed Termination Order Must Be Counted for Computing Gratuity Entitlement

The petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee and joined service on 02.03.2012.

On 26.09.2012, he was removed from service by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, on grounds of being overage.

The petitioner challenged this in CWJC No. 19445 of 2012, where the High Court set aside the removal order on 27.01.2014 and directed the authorities to accept his joining.

After initiating contempt proceedings (MJC No. 3731 of 2014), his joining was finally accepted on 11.02.2015.

He superannuated on 30.11.2019.

The respondents refused his claim for gratuity, arguing that his service tenure from 11.02.2015 to 30.11.2019 amounted to only 4 years, 9 months, and 19 days, failing the 5-year minimum requirement under the New Pension Scheme.

1. Whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the illegal removal order (02.03.2012 to 26.09.2012) must be counted toward the qualifying service for gratuity.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity benefits despite the total continuous physical service falling short of 5 years due to administrative delays and illegal removal.

The court applied the principle that once an order of removal is set aside by a court of law, the status quo ante is restored, and the service rendered prior to such an order cannot be ignored for the purpose of computing terminal benefits.

The court also considered the eligibility criteria for gratuity under the New Pension Scheme, which generally requires a minimum of five years of qualifying service.

The Court observed that the petitioner's initial removal on 26.09.2012 had already been declared illegal and set aside by a coordinate Bench in 2014.

The Court reasoned that since the removal order was quashed, the service of 6 months and 24 days rendered by the petitioner from 02.03.2012 to 26.09.2012 remains valid and must be aggregated with the service rendered after his reinstatement.

The Court found that any delay in re-joining was attributable to the respondents, who only complied after contempt proceedings were filed.

By adding the initial period of service to the subsequent tenure, the petitioner meets the 5-year threshold required for gratuity.

It held that the service rendered prior to the quashed removal order cannot be ignored for computation of gratuity.

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad, was directed to compute the total service by including the period before 26.09.2012 and the period after 11.02.2015 to process the gratuity claim.

The Court ordered the exercise to be completed and payment to be made within eight weeks.