LexVIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE versus THE HEADMISTRESS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE, ANJI (MOTHI), TAH. AND DISTT. WARDHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 eli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.