SB CWP NO.5951/07 – Lrs of S.M. Agrawal v. Secy, Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan & others Date of order:05.01.2009 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT J O D H P U R ::: O R D E R L.Rs. of S.M. Agrawal V. Secretary, Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan & ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5951 OF 2007 ::: Date of Order: 05th January, 2009 ::: P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr M.K. Trivedi, for the petitioner Mr D.K. Parihar, for respondents ::: BY THE COURT By order dated 11th May, 2004, the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur accepted an appeal preferred by the Secretary, Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan, Jodhpur against order dated 29th June, 2002 pased by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Jodhpur in Case No.02/1998. The Controlling Authority by the order aforesaid declared the petitioner entitled for receiving gratuity as per provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with rule 82 of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Gratuity Rules, 1993. Learned Appellate Authority while setting SB CWP NO.5951/07 – Lrs of S.M. Agrawal v. Secy, Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan & others Date of order:05.01.2009 2 of 3 aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority held that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shanti Ben L. Krystel v. Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, 1991 FLR 60, teachers are not entitled for any gratuity. While assailing validity of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 11th May, 2004, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 prescribes - “the employees of aided educational institutions shall be entitled to gratuity as admissible under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended from time to time” and as such, a gratuity is a legal right of the petitioner. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that in the case of Shanti Ben L. Krystel (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that if a teacher is entitled for gratuity in any other statute then the same shall be determined and given as per statute concerned. Per contra, stand of employer is that the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30th June, 1992 and the Rules of 1993 came into force on 01st January, 1993 and as such, no relief can be claimed by the petitioner as per provisions of Rules of 1993. SB CWP NO.5951/07 – Lrs of S.M. Agrawal v. Secy, Mahesh Sikshan Sansthan & others Date of order:05.01.2009 3 of 3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service on 30th June, 1992 and Rules of 1993 came into force on 01st January, 1993, no right, therefore, accrued in his favour for getting the gratuity. Rule 82 of the Rules of 1993 did not create any right in favour of petitioner for getting gratuity as he retired from service prior to coming into force of Rules of 1993. The order impugned, for the reasons above, does not warrant interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. mma