BINDRA PRASAD PATEL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal arises out of a composite judgment passed by learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, including Writ-A No.5588 of 2023, whereby petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity is rejected.

(2.) The petitioner-appellant in the present case was employed as Headmaster in a junior high school. He (petitioner) received National Teachers' Award which entitled him to two years extension in service. The age of superannuation was otherwise 62 years under the applicable rules. As such, the appellant has superannuated on 31/3/2017 after availing session's benefit at the age of 64 years. The writ petition came to be filed by the appellant with the prayer to direct the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj to release gratuity to him alongwith interest. It is this claim which came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the matter it would be necessary to refer to the background in which the dispute has arisen. The State of Uttar Pradesh enacted U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1972') primarily for establishing a Board of Basic Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') and for matters connected therewith. The Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and has the power to acquire and hold property. Its constitution and powers are specified in the Act of 1972. The 'Board' has established various educational institutions upto Junior High School level (hereinafter referred to as 'Basic Institutions'). The appointment and conditions of service of the teachers of the Basic Institutions are governed by statutory service regulations, namely U.P. Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1981'). The Rules of 1981 contained no provision regarding payment of pension or gratuity.