There exists no distinction on the basis of nature of employment whether it is temporary/ad-hoc/ permanent employee and as such all employees are entitled to payment of gratuity

In the matter of Janardan Sharma vs. GNCTD in W.P. (C)11154/2019 decided on 03.08.2021 by the Delhi High Court.

Facts:

Petitioner herein was a vocational part-time teacher in a Govt. School, under the GNCT of Delhi who filed a writ petition praying for the payment of gratuity to vocational part time teachers after their superannuation or retirement, being relieved from service after attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner was appointed as such on 02.12.1991 and retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on 26.03.2020.

Held:

The court in the present matter, referring to the Apex court’s decision in Birla Institute of Technology v The State of Jharkhand and Ors., (MANU/SC/0337/2019) noted that teachers fell within the purview of “employee” as defined in Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and that they were entitled to claim gratuity under the act from the employer.

The Court further observed that the act does not draw a distinction between full-time employee/ part time employee/ ad hoc employee etc. and that the petitioner despite being a part time teacher was entitled to receive gratuity if not under the scheme prevailing in the department, then under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as he cannot be left without means of sustenance post retirement.

The petition was hence, allowed and the respondents were directed to pay gratuity to the petitioner by counting the period of service w.e.f. April 03, 1997 till March 26, 2020 with interest computed @ 6% per annum.