i and one of my collegues retired from a goverment aided school in 2006 and 2010 respectively....we worked there for 10 years...are we elegible for claiming graduity now...?
From India, Dewas
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Dewas
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It was the duty of the school (employer) to have paid you gratuity on retirement. Any reason why they did not pay you?? Limitation Act does not apply to the payment of gratuity. You can claim it now also. By the way, it is gratuity and not graduity.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
3180From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
You have not mentioned whether both of you had worked as teachers or otherwise. Moreover, since you worked in a Govt.-aided school, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is not applicable to you. You would be entitled to gratuity only as per the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Rules applicable to Govt. servants.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The definition of 'employee' under the Gratuity Act has been amended to include teachers also within its purview. However, the member posting the query did not clarify whether he and his colleague were working as teachers or as administrative staff. Since it is a government-aided school, as Mr. Umakantan said, probably the gratuity scheme of the State Govt. must be applicable to the School. The member shall clarify it.
B. Saikumar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Both of us have worked as teachers for 10 years. According to the amendment made in the Gratuity Act in 2009 that included teachers, I retired in the year 2006, so I wasn't sure if I was eligible for gratuity then. As per the rules, one eligible for gratuity has to send the application for the same either before 30 days of retirement or 30 days after retirement, and I was unsuccessful in doing so. Can I claim now?
From India, Dewas
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Dewas
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"I was unsuccessful in doing so."
Unsuccessful - what does it mean? You retired in 2006, and in 2009, an amendment act was passed to include teachers for gratuity purposes. So probably, your other teacher who retired in 2010 is eligible.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unsuccessful - what does it mean? You retired in 2006, and in 2009, an amendment act was passed to include teachers for gratuity purposes. So probably, your other teacher who retired in 2010 is eligible.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Gratuity Eligibility for Teachers
It appears that the amendment to the Act covering teachers as employees has come into force with effect from April 1997. You are advised to confirm this at your end also. There is no time bar to make a claim for gratuity. On the other hand, it is the employer's responsibility to pay you gratuity when you are eligible for it. However, you need to confirm whether the school is covered by the Government gratuity scheme since it is a government-aided school or whether it has its own gratuity scheme. If not, then it is governed by the Gratuity Act. Probably the school might not be aware of the amendment of the Act. You can make an application to the school even now.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
It appears that the amendment to the Act covering teachers as employees has come into force with effect from April 1997. You are advised to confirm this at your end also. There is no time bar to make a claim for gratuity. On the other hand, it is the employer's responsibility to pay you gratuity when you are eligible for it. However, you need to confirm whether the school is covered by the Government gratuity scheme since it is a government-aided school or whether it has its own gratuity scheme. If not, then it is governed by the Gratuity Act. Probably the school might not be aware of the amendment of the Act. You can make an application to the school even now.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
With effect from 03-04-1997, educational institutions in which 10 or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months were specified by the Central Government as a class of establishments to which the PG Act, 1972 shall apply.
Therefore, Ayush and his friend can make an application to the Controlling Authority under the Act for the area, together with a delay condonation petition as suggested by Mr. Saikumar. However, confusion arises from the description in the post that the school where they worked and retired was a government-aided school.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Therefore, Ayush and his friend can make an application to the Controlling Authority under the Act for the area, together with a delay condonation petition as suggested by Mr. Saikumar. However, confusion arises from the description in the post that the school where they worked and retired was a government-aided school.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Dear Aayush, As a teacher, I expected that at least you should have clarified this issue with the school office. I can't believe you people could be idle like this for so many years. What can I say? In which state is your school located? Is it Madhya Pradesh? Can you at least reveal this secret to us so that we can guide you properly without any more delay? This has been the story of winning the retirement benefits in Karnataka, to go through this so that your doubts could start clearing now.
Excerpts from The Hindu
KARNATAKA, GULBARGA, December 18, 2013
Government concedes aided school teachers' demand
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
HC order on pension fitment to be implemented soon
"A large number of teachers working in aided institutions, including schools, colleges, engineering colleges, industrial training institutes, B. Ed colleges, polytechnics, and others, scored a major victory for their long-drawn struggle as the government is said to have given an undertaking before the two-member division bench of the Gulbarga Bench of the Karnataka High Court that it will implement the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court on pension fitment and other benefits, except the pay, from the date of appointment.
The former MLC from North East Teachers' constituency and BJP leader Shashil G. Namoshi told a hurriedly convened press conference here on Tuesday that Principal Secretary of Primary and Secondary Education Raj Kumar Kataria had filed an affidavit before the division bench, consisting of Ram Manohar Reddy and Keshav Narayan, that the government would implement the orders of the court and extend all the benefits to teachers working in aided institutions within two months.
The affidavit said that the implementation of court directions would result in an additional burden of more than Rs. 7,000 crore on the State exchequer.
In their standing order, the judges, according to Mr. Namoshi, had said that the government should implement the orders to all eligible teachers.
The judges said that the government should extend the benefits within a period of two months, as mentioned in the affidavit, and the court would not give any extension for the implementation of the court's directions. Mr. Namoshi urged the government to extend the benefits by revising the pension fitment of teachers who had already retired from service and were denied their due pension owing to the government's decision not to take the original date of appointment for pension fitment and other benefits.
He said, one of the teachers, who had been denied pension fitment from the date of his appointment, had approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking its direction to take his services into account from the date of appointment, instead of the date of the government sanctioning the grant-in-aid to the school in which he was working, for pension fitment and other benefits. The Karnataka High Court had upheld the contention of the petitioner and directed the State government to make the fitment of pension and payment of gratuity calculations from the date of appointment of the teacher. Later, the government filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the same in August this year.
Thousands of teachers who were appointed in various educational institutions much before they were brought under the purview of the grant-in-aid provisions and the State government, while extending the benefits of grant-in-aid to some of the teachers from the date of their appointment, had denied the same to a large section of teachers and had taken into consideration the date of sanctioning the aid to the respective institution as the date of appointment for fixing the pension and payment of gratuity."
Following is the extract from the amendment made to the Gratuity Act with regard to the inclusion of teachers of private educational institutions: (full text of the bill is attached)
xxx 26. The Committee observes that the extant amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been necessitated following the verdict of the Supreme Court adjudicating that teachers of private educational institutions do not answer the description of the definition of 'employee' under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The connotation of 'employee' in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not akin to the one given in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Therefore, it was essential to widen the definition of 'employee' in order to extend the benefits of gratuity to teachers of private educational institutions. To achieve the above objective, the amendment has been proposed in the Bill. Although the Committee is broadly in agreement with the proposed amendment of Section 2 (e), they are apprehensive that the replacement of some portion of the definition of 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act with another portion of 2(f) of EPF & MP Act, 1952 is likely to leave some lacuna therein. The Committee, therefore, calls upon the Government to ensure that the new definition of the 'employee' being proposed in the Bill should be unambiguous, encompassing with clear reference to the targeted group, i.e., teachers of the private educational institutions in the definition itself so as to avoid any misinterpretation in future. xxxx
Annexure-I
Bill No.90 of 2007
Short title.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007
A
BILL
further to amend the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-eighth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2007.
2. In the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in section 2, for clause (e), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
'(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment, to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;'.
Amendment of section 2.
39 of 1972.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) provides for payment of gratuity to employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop employing 10 or more workers.
2. The Central Government had extended the provisions of the Act to the educational institutions employing 10 or more persons vide this Ministry's notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April, 1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13th January, 2004, in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Vs Administrative Officer [AIR 2004 (SC) 1426] held that teachers are not entitled to gratuity under the Act, in view of the fact that teachers do not answer the description of "employee" who are "skilled", "semi-skilled" or "unskilled". The Supreme Court observed that non-use of wide language similar to the definition of "employee" as is contained in section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reinforces the conclusion that teachers are not covered in that definition. Para 26 of the said judgment reads as follows:—
"Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in a very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the Legislature to take cognizance of the situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the Legislature to consider and decide."
3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of "employee", in order to extend the benefits of gratuity to the teachers, by amending the same.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
NEW DELHI; OSCAR FERNANDES.
The 7th September, 2007.
FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) provides for payment of gratuity to employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop employing ten or more workers. The Bill amends the definition of "employee" in section 2(e) of the Act so that teachers shall also be entitled to payment of gratuity.
2. The responsibility for administration of the Act vests mainly in the State Governments and the liability for payment of gratuity vests in the employer. The employees of the Central Government and State Governments who are getting gratuity under any other Act or rules are not covered under the Act. However, as respects teachers employed by institutions aided by the Central Government, the liability on employers may involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India. The exact expenditure to be incurred on this account cannot be estimated at this stage.
3. Apart from the above, no other expenditure of recurring or non-recurring nature from the Consolidated Fund of India is envisaged.
ANNEXURE
EXTRACT FROM THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
(39 OF 1972)
* * * * *
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
* * * * *
(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or un-skilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;
* * * * *
APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
'NOTIFICATION NO. 5-42013/1/95-ss.ii dated 3RD APRIL, 1997.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (c) of sub-clause (3) of S. 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this Notification.
Provided that nothing contained in this Notification shall affect the operation of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour S. O. 239 dated 8th January, 1982.'
An educational institution, therefore, is an 'establishment' notified under S. 1(3) (c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is contended that the only beneficial effect of the Notification issued under S. 1(3) (c) of the Act of 1972, is that such non-teaching staff of educational institutions as answer the description of any of the employments contained in the definition Cl. 2(e), would be covered by provisions of the Act. The teaching staff being not covered by the definition of 'employee' can get no advantage merely because by Notification 'educational institutions' as establishments are covered by the provisions of the Act.
NOTIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
{PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART-II SECTION 3(i) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ON 19TH APRIL 1997}
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya
New Delhi, the 3rd April, 1997.
NOTIFICATION
S.O. 1080…-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this notification.
Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall affect the operation of the notification of the Ministry of Labour S.O. 239 dated 8th January, 1982.'
(F. No. S-42013/1/95-SS.II)
Sd/.
(J. P. Shukla)
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
To
The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Ring Road, Mayapuri,
New Delhi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Excerpts from The Hindu
KARNATAKA, GULBARGA, December 18, 2013
Government concedes aided school teachers' demand
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
HC order on pension fitment to be implemented soon
"A large number of teachers working in aided institutions, including schools, colleges, engineering colleges, industrial training institutes, B. Ed colleges, polytechnics, and others, scored a major victory for their long-drawn struggle as the government is said to have given an undertaking before the two-member division bench of the Gulbarga Bench of the Karnataka High Court that it will implement the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court on pension fitment and other benefits, except the pay, from the date of appointment.
The former MLC from North East Teachers' constituency and BJP leader Shashil G. Namoshi told a hurriedly convened press conference here on Tuesday that Principal Secretary of Primary and Secondary Education Raj Kumar Kataria had filed an affidavit before the division bench, consisting of Ram Manohar Reddy and Keshav Narayan, that the government would implement the orders of the court and extend all the benefits to teachers working in aided institutions within two months.
The affidavit said that the implementation of court directions would result in an additional burden of more than Rs. 7,000 crore on the State exchequer.
In their standing order, the judges, according to Mr. Namoshi, had said that the government should implement the orders to all eligible teachers.
The judges said that the government should extend the benefits within a period of two months, as mentioned in the affidavit, and the court would not give any extension for the implementation of the court's directions. Mr. Namoshi urged the government to extend the benefits by revising the pension fitment of teachers who had already retired from service and were denied their due pension owing to the government's decision not to take the original date of appointment for pension fitment and other benefits.
He said, one of the teachers, who had been denied pension fitment from the date of his appointment, had approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking its direction to take his services into account from the date of appointment, instead of the date of the government sanctioning the grant-in-aid to the school in which he was working, for pension fitment and other benefits. The Karnataka High Court had upheld the contention of the petitioner and directed the State government to make the fitment of pension and payment of gratuity calculations from the date of appointment of the teacher. Later, the government filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the same in August this year.
Thousands of teachers who were appointed in various educational institutions much before they were brought under the purview of the grant-in-aid provisions and the State government, while extending the benefits of grant-in-aid to some of the teachers from the date of their appointment, had denied the same to a large section of teachers and had taken into consideration the date of sanctioning the aid to the respective institution as the date of appointment for fixing the pension and payment of gratuity."
Following is the extract from the amendment made to the Gratuity Act with regard to the inclusion of teachers of private educational institutions: (full text of the bill is attached)
xxx 26. The Committee observes that the extant amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been necessitated following the verdict of the Supreme Court adjudicating that teachers of private educational institutions do not answer the description of the definition of 'employee' under Section 2 (e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The connotation of 'employee' in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not akin to the one given in Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Therefore, it was essential to widen the definition of 'employee' in order to extend the benefits of gratuity to teachers of private educational institutions. To achieve the above objective, the amendment has been proposed in the Bill. Although the Committee is broadly in agreement with the proposed amendment of Section 2 (e), they are apprehensive that the replacement of some portion of the definition of 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act with another portion of 2(f) of EPF & MP Act, 1952 is likely to leave some lacuna therein. The Committee, therefore, calls upon the Government to ensure that the new definition of the 'employee' being proposed in the Bill should be unambiguous, encompassing with clear reference to the targeted group, i.e., teachers of the private educational institutions in the definition itself so as to avoid any misinterpretation in future. xxxx
Annexure-I
Bill No.90 of 2007
Short title.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2007
A
BILL
further to amend the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-eighth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2007.
2. In the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in section 2, for clause (e), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
'(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment, to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;'.
Amendment of section 2.
39 of 1972.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) provides for payment of gratuity to employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop employing 10 or more workers.
2. The Central Government had extended the provisions of the Act to the educational institutions employing 10 or more persons vide this Ministry's notification No. S.O. 1080 dated 3rd April, 1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13th January, 2004, in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association Vs Administrative Officer [AIR 2004 (SC) 1426] held that teachers are not entitled to gratuity under the Act, in view of the fact that teachers do not answer the description of "employee" who are "skilled", "semi-skilled" or "unskilled". The Supreme Court observed that non-use of wide language similar to the definition of "employee" as is contained in section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reinforces the conclusion that teachers are not covered in that definition. Para 26 of the said judgment reads as follows:—
"Our conclusion should not be misunderstood that teachers although engaged in a very noble profession of educating our young generation should not be given any gratuity benefit. There are already in several States separate statutes, rules and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Act. It is for the Legislature to take cognizance of the situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the Legislature to consider and decide."
3. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proposed to widen the definition of "employee", in order to extend the benefits of gratuity to the teachers, by amending the same.
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
NEW DELHI; OSCAR FERNANDES.
The 7th September, 2007.
FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) provides for payment of gratuity to employees employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop employing ten or more workers. The Bill amends the definition of "employee" in section 2(e) of the Act so that teachers shall also be entitled to payment of gratuity.
2. The responsibility for administration of the Act vests mainly in the State Governments and the liability for payment of gratuity vests in the employer. The employees of the Central Government and State Governments who are getting gratuity under any other Act or rules are not covered under the Act. However, as respects teachers employed by institutions aided by the Central Government, the liability on employers may involve expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India. The exact expenditure to be incurred on this account cannot be estimated at this stage.
3. Apart from the above, no other expenditure of recurring or non-recurring nature from the Consolidated Fund of India is envisaged.
ANNEXURE
EXTRACT FROM THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
(39 OF 1972)
* * * * *
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
* * * * *
(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or un-skilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity;
* * * * *
APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
'NOTIFICATION NO. 5-42013/1/95-ss.ii dated 3RD APRIL, 1997.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (c) of sub-clause (3) of S. 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this Notification.
Provided that nothing contained in this Notification shall affect the operation of the Notification of the Ministry of Labour S. O. 239 dated 8th January, 1982.'
An educational institution, therefore, is an 'establishment' notified under S. 1(3) (c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is contended that the only beneficial effect of the Notification issued under S. 1(3) (c) of the Act of 1972, is that such non-teaching staff of educational institutions as answer the description of any of the employments contained in the definition Cl. 2(e), would be covered by provisions of the Act. The teaching staff being not covered by the definition of 'employee' can get no advantage merely because by Notification 'educational institutions' as establishments are covered by the provisions of the Act.
NOTIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY OF THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
{PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART-II SECTION 3(i) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ON 19TH APRIL 1997}
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya
New Delhi, the 3rd April, 1997.
NOTIFICATION
S.O. 1080…-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972), the Central Government hereby specifies the educational institutions in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day preceding 12 months as a class of establishments to which the said Act shall apply with effect from the date of publication of this notification.
Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall affect the operation of the notification of the Ministry of Labour S.O. 239 dated 8th January, 1982.'
(F. No. S-42013/1/95-SS.II)
Sd/.
(J. P. Shukla)
UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
To
The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Ring Road, Mayapuri,
New Delhi
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In that case, you are on par with regular government servants in respect of retirement benefits. If you were appointed prior to 01-04-2003, you are eligible to receive pension benefits, including gratuity, as per the old Pension Rules. Please check with your school administration, prepare the proposals, and submit them to the Accountant General through the proper channel.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Shri Umakanthan,
The OP should have given full information in the initial post itself. I had also mentioned in my first reply that they are entitled to gratuity based on the word "retired," which implies long service. The importance of providing full relevant information is once again highlighted. Here, despite being teachers, they misspelled gratuity as graduity.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
The OP should have given full information in the initial post itself. I had also mentioned in my first reply that they are entitled to gratuity based on the word "retired," which implies long service. The importance of providing full relevant information is once again highlighted. Here, despite being teachers, they misspelled gratuity as graduity.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Could anybody please suggest how to claim gratuity from a company that does not pay gratuity? My wife has resigned from a proprietorship company after working for 10 years of continuous service. The company she used to work for does not accept that gratuity payment is a statutory requirement that needs to be fulfilled. Now, my wife wants to claim gratuity, and that is why it is necessary to know the procedure. Considering the present scenario, it is assumed that the management will not entertain the application. In that case, what should be the procedure to proceed further?
Looking forward to an early reply.
Thanks & regards
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Looking forward to an early reply.
Thanks & regards
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Mr. Nathrao. One point to clarify: should a normal request letter be sent, or should a request letter along with Form "I" be sent? There is a possibility that the registered letter may not be received by the authority. In that case, how valid is it to send the same request by email? Is there any provision in the Payment of Gratuity Act stating that after separation, the employer must voluntarily settle the separated employee's gratuity within a stipulated time frame? Kindly advise.
Thanks and regards
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks and regards
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First, verify whether the proprietorship firm is covered by the Gratuity Act because the Gratuity Act is applicable to establishments employing 10 or more persons. If so, submit your claim in Form "I", if you have not done so already. If you have already submitted the claim in the prescribed form, please send a reminder via registered mail, informing them to settle the claim within a week's time. If they fail to do so, you will be compelled to resort to legal remedies to recover the same.
B. Saikumar
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
Navi Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
If the remark is 'refused,' then it also amounts to good service. You can check it with the postal authorities.
Gratuity Payment Obligations
An employer has no option under the Gratuity Act to withhold gratuity that is due under the Act to the eligible employee. He cannot avoid this obligation by refusing to accept the form/application. Now you have two options. One is to send the form again by registered AD, referring to the earlier communication that was returned to you. Simultaneously, alert the employer to his liability to pay interest for the period of delay, as sanctioned by the Act, and give them a week's time to settle it. Alternatively, you can approach the Controlling Authority, who is the Assistant Labour Commissioner (State), with an application for recovery of gratuity along with interest for the delay, furnishing all details/facts therein.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Gratuity Payment Obligations
An employer has no option under the Gratuity Act to withhold gratuity that is due under the Act to the eligible employee. He cannot avoid this obligation by refusing to accept the form/application. Now you have two options. One is to send the form again by registered AD, referring to the earlier communication that was returned to you. Simultaneously, alert the employer to his liability to pay interest for the period of delay, as sanctioned by the Act, and give them a week's time to settle it. Alternatively, you can approach the Controlling Authority, who is the Assistant Labour Commissioner (State), with an application for recovery of gratuity along with interest for the delay, furnishing all details/facts therein.
Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Benefits.doc
SBT Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner- Gratuity dismissed employee-LTS.PD F