The petitioner, a retired Headmaster, sought gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that teachers in basic institutions are not employees under the Act, following precedents in Bindra Prasad Patel and Mirza Imran Beg.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16283 of 2025
Mahesh Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
| Versus | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Of U.P. And 2 Others | .....Respon | dent(s) | ||
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Abhishek Dwivedi |
Dwivedi, | Vidya |
Sagar |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : C.S.C., Sur |
esh Kumar | Maurya | |
| Court No.- 2 |
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to release or pay the gratuity amount of the petitioner with interest as directed by this Hon'ble Court within a stipulated period of time."
WRIA No. 16283 of 2025
2
in view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, petitioner is not entitled for gratuity. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as follows :-
"In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. has relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Appeal Defective No.812 of 2024 (Asha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) as decided on 30.4.2025, wherein it has been held that gratuity would be admissible to those who continue service beyond the age of 60 years. He has also relied upon another judgment passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. - 41 of 2025 (Bindra Prasad Patel vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) as decided on 8.7.2025, wherein it has been held that a teacher (including Headmaster) of a basic institution cannot be held to be the employee under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972. The benefits available to an employee under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would thus not be available to such a teacher. Accordingly, the petitioner is also not entitled for the gratuity as claimed. Relying upon another judgment passed by this Court in Writ - A No. - 8823 of 2025 (Sirajul Hasan Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on 14.7.2025, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A submits that teacher including Headmaster, Basic Institution cannot be held to be an employee under Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, she is not entitled for any benefits under the aforesaid Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions as made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the averments as made by learned counsel for respondentB.S.A. in paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit have not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the Government Order dated 3.2.2023 is not applicable on the facts of the present case nor has placed any such submission before this Court. In view of the Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 3.2.2023, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed, accordingly. "
WRIA No. 16283 of 2025
3
employee under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972. The benefits available to an employee under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would thus not be available to such a teacher. Accordingly, the petitioner is also not entitled for the gratuity as claimed.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
November 6, 2025
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a teacher or Headmaster in a basic institution qualifies as an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mirza Imran Beg Vs. State of U.P. and 3 othersRelied on¶11
Writ A No.11159 of 2025 (Mirza Imran Beg Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others)
Asha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And 4 OthersReferred¶15
Special Appeal Defective No.812 of 2024 (Asha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others)
Bindra Prasad Patel vs. State Of U.P. And 3 OthersRelied on¶15
Special Appeal No. - 41 of 2025 (Bindra Prasad Patel vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others)
Sirajul Hasan Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersReferred¶15
Writ - A No. - 8823 of 2025 (Sirajul Hasan Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Chandra
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
