VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADEversusTHE HEADMISTRESS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE, ANJI (MOTHI), TAH. AND DISTT. WARDHA & ORS.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 481 : 2025 INSC 824

              Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade
                             v.
  The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College,
        Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.
               (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19436 of 2024)
                                14 July 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to whether the legal heirs of a deceased teacher in
       an aided school would be entitled to gratuity under the Payment
       of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the Maharashtra Civil Services
       (Pension Rules), 1982.

                                 Headnotes†
       Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982 – Payment
       of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity – Claim
       of – Death of the teacher working in an aided school – Claim
       of gratuity by the son-petitioner under the 1972 Act, being the
       nominee – Claim rejected by the authorities below as also by
       the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: Though the teachers may not be holding a post under the
       State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government,
       at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while
       in service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement, are
       covered under the 1982 Rules – On death prior to five years of
       service the benefits under the 1982 Rules would be more beneficial
       to the dependents of the employees – Government servants
       including the teachers in the Government schools would be entitled
       to gratuity under the 1982 Rules and there cannot be a situation
       where the teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different
       computation of gratuity under the 1972 Act – Rules of 1982 enables
       not only Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity-DCRG but also pension
       to the employees covered under the 1982 Rules, which a person
       entitled to the gratuity under the 1972 Act may not be entitled in
       all circumstances – Petitioner, has been paid the provident fund
       dues, for which he was notified as a nominee, by the mother when

* Author
482                                                               [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       she was alive – No reason to direct the petitioner to produce a
       legal heirship certificate since in any case the payment made
       to nominee or one of the legal heirs, when there are also other
       legal heirs left behind, is in trust for all the others – Petitioner to
       approach the first respondent with an application for payment of
       DCRG in accordance with the 1982 Rules along with an undertaking
       to indemnify the Government and the Society running the aided
       school from any claims made by any other legal heir. [Paras 7-12]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand [2019] 2 SCR
       963 : (2019) 4 SCC 513; Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers’
       Assn. v. Administrative Officer [2004] 1 SCR 470 : (2004) 1 SCC
       755 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Constitution of India; Maharashtra
       Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982.

                                List of Keywords
       Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity; Death of the teacher working in an
       aided school; Claim of gratuity; Nominee; Entitlement of pension;
       Provident fund; Gratuity; Monetary benefits; Government servants;
       Computation of gratuity; Legal heirship certificate.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
       No. 19436 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 5921 of 2023

                            Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Satyajit A. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin
       Singh, Ananya Thapliyal, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Ms. Yugandhara
       Pawar Jha, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
       Ms. Lavanya Dhawan.
       Petitioner-in-person.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         483

Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School
    and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                       Judgment

       K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1.     The petitioner is the son of a teacher in an aided school, who died
       while in service. The petitioner as the legal heir claims gratuity
       under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 19721. The petitioner’s claim
       was rejected by the original authority and the appellate authority
       under the Act and also the High Court against which the petitioner
       is before this Court.
2.     The petitioner appeared in person and argued that the school
       has settled the General Provident Fund dues in his name clearly
       mentioning him as nominee and the question of legal heirship
       certificate never arose. Birla Institute of Technology v. State
       of Jharkhand 2 clearly held that teachers are eligible for gratuity
       under the Act overruling the judgment placed on record by the
       learned Government Advocate reported in Ahmedabad (P) Primary
       Teachers’ Assn. v. Administrative Officer 3, negativing the case of
       the Government that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
       of India would apply. It is contended that without an exemption with
       respect to the schools in Maharashtra, the Gratuity Act cannot be
       made inapplicable. Further the exemption under sub-rule (5) of Rule 4
       does not apply since the gratuity payable under the Act is far more
       beneficial than the scheme under the Rules of 1982.
3.     The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submits that
       being an aided school, the employees are paid pay & allowances,
       while in service, by the Government so is the pensionary benefits
       including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) paid under the
       Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 19824 brought out under
       Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There is no question of the
       petitioner being paid amounts under the Act of 1972. The petitioner
       admits that his father is surviving, who would also be a legal heir


1    For brevity ‘the Act of 1972’
2    (2019) 4 SCC 513
3    (2004) 1 SCC 755
4    For brevity ‘the Rules of 1982’
484                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       of the deceased. The petitioner hence has to produce a legal heir
       certificate and the claim of the father will also have to be dealt
       with. The High Court has in fact directed such consideration by the
       Government, on the Government’s own undertaking that it would be
       done expeditiously on an application being filed with required papers.
4.     The petitioner approached the original authority under the Payment
       of Gratuity Act who found that there was a difference in DA, as
       asserted by the petitioner in his application and the last pay certificate
       of the deceased teacher which was produced before the authority,
       which makes the claim for DCRG anomalous. We cannot accept
       this contention since the DA will have to be ascertained from the
       last pay certificate issued by the employer. It was also held that the
       Act of 1972 though would be applicable to teachers, the definition
       of employee excludes a person holding a post under the Central
       Government and State Government; which the teacher was holding
       while she was in service. Finding that the petitioner’s mother’s service
       does not fall under the Act of 1972, the application was rejected.
5.     The appellate authority found the order of the controlling authority
       to be perfectly in order. It was also noticed that the respondent had
       specifically contended that the petitioner had never approached
       the respondents with a proper documentation as to the death and
       legitimacy of the claim. Before the High Court, the respondent
       submitted that it requires certain documents from the petitioner for
       processing the claim, namely, photograph and the undertaking to
       indemnify the legitimate claim, if raised by any other person, on
       submission of which, the claim would be processed. A direction was
       issued to process the claim as undertaken by the respondent for
       which the petitioner was directed to be present before the respondent.
6.     On the question of the teacher’s entitlement to the provisions of the
       Gratuity Act, it has to be held that the decision in Birla Institute of
       Technology2 puts to rest any such controversy. The question here
       would be not so much the entitlement to gratuity but as to whether
       the legal heirs of a deceased teacher in an aided school would be
       entitled to gratuity under the Act of 1972 or under the Rules of 1982.
       The argument of the State is that an aided school employee, including
       a teacher would be exempted from the definition of an employee
       under the Act. Per contra it is argued that the exemption is only to
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        485

Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School
    and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.

     a person who holds a post under the Central Government or State
     Government. An aided school teacher does not hold a post under
     the State Government contends the appellant.
7.   It must be observed that a teacher in an aided school for all practical
     purposes is akin to a post under the State Government. Pertinent
     is the fact that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by
     the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay
     and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school
     teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as
     are applicable to Government teachers, with entitlement of pension,
     provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules
     brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though
     strictly speaking the teachers may not be holding a post under the
     State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government,
     at least for the monetary benefits of pay and allowances, while in
     service, as also pension and other benefits on retirement.
8.   We have to also notice that sub-section (5) makes Section 4
     inapplicable, if the employees have a right to receive better terms of
     gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with an employer.
     When comparing the benefits, the question is not to be considered in
     isolation with respect to an employee and whether he or she would
     be entitled to higher amounts under the Act or under the Rules. The
     scheme has to be considered in toto for the purpose of determining
     as to which is more beneficial. The Act of 1972 prescribes under
     Section 4(2), gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages based on the last
     wages drawn for every completed year of service or part thereof in
     excess of six months. Insofar as the Rules of 1982 is concerned,
     gratuity is payable equal to ¼th of last pay drawn of each completed
     six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16
     and a half years. It has to be noticed that the payment of gratuity as
     per the Act of 1972 is payable to an employee on the termination of
     his employment after rendering continuous service for not less than
     five years; the minimum limit of five years being not applicable only
     when the termination is due to death or disablement. While DCRG
     under the Rules of 1982 is payable to the Government employee, at
     any time his services cease without the minimum limit of five years-
     service. Further, on death prior to the minimum period, the gratuity
     payable under the Rules of 1982 is far more than that applicable
     under the Act of 1972, which is as hereunder:
486                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



          Completed year of                            death gratuity
          qualifying service
                   1                    …            2 ½ months’ pay
                   2                    …              5 months’ pay
                   3                    …            7 ½ months’ pay
                   4                    …             10 months’ pay

9.     A person entering service though has a normal expectation of retiring
       on attaining the age of superannuation but there are vagaries of
       fate which would make it otherwise. We have already seen that on
       death prior to five years of service the benefits under the Rules of
       1982 would be more beneficial to the dependents of the employees.
       Further it must be noticed that the Government servants including
       the teachers in the Government schools would be entitled to gratuity
       under the Rules of 1982 and there cannot be a situation where the
       teachers of aided schools are entitled to a different computation
       of gratuity under the Act of 1972. It is also to be emphasised that
       the Rules of 1982 enables not only DCRG but also pension to
       the employees covered under the Rules of 1982, which a person
       entitled to the gratuity under the Act of 1972 may not be entitled in
       all circumstances.
10. We are of the opinion that the aided school teachers who are governed
    by the service conditions brought out by the State Government are
    also covered under the Rules of 1982. The extent of application as
    per the Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1982 specifically makes it applicable
    to: “Any person for whose appointment and conditions of employment
    special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in
    force” (sic). There can hence be no dispute raised on the applicability
    of the Rules of 1982, insofar as aided school teachers are concerned
    whose pay and allowances and service conditions are regulated by
    the Government.
11. Now we come to the actual claim raised by the petitioner, who is the
    son of the deceased teacher. The Government Advocate had raised
    a contention that the required documents have not been produced,
    especially the legal heirship certificate, especially in the context of
    the husband of the deceased teacher being still alive. Petitioner,
    however, contends that the husband was estranged and they have
    been separated for long. Be that as it may, a mere estrangement
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       487

Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. The Headmistress Girls High School
    and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tah. and Distt. Wardha & Ors.

     would not disentitle the husband from the benefits due to the family
     of a deceased employee. The petitioner, undisputedly has been paid
     the provident fund dues, for which he was notified as a nominee, as
     seen from the records, by the mother when she was alive; presumably
     as indicated from her service records. We find absolutely no reason
     to direct the petitioner to produce a legal heirship certificate since
     in any case the payment made to a nominee or one of the legal
     heirs, when there are also other legal heirs left behind, is in trust
     and the person who receives the payment as a nominee holds
     the money in trust for all the others. The nomination made by the
     deceased employee while she was alive only absolves the employer
     from finding out the different legal heirs for the purpose of making
     payments apportioning their separate shares.
12. The death is undisputed and there is no requirement now to produce
    the death certificate also. In such circumstances, the petitioner shall
    approach the first respondent with an application for payment of DCRG
    in accordance with the Rules of 1982 along with an undertaking to
    indemnify the Government and the Society which runs the aided
    school from any claims made by any other legal heir, by a notarised
    affidavit. The same shall be forwarded to the Education Officer, who
    shall make the payment expeditiously. We make it clear that the
    petitioner shall also be paid simple interest @ 7% per year, starting
    from one month of the date of death of the employee, till the date
    of payment.
13. The Special Leave Petition is allowed with the above modification.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Special Leave Petition allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain