Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52845-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1077 of 2024 Appellant :- State Of Up And 3 Others Respondent :- Shyama Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,C.S.C.,S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. This appeal is by the State challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22.05.2024, passed in Writ A No. 7235 of 2024. The facts, as are noticed by the learned Single Judge and are not in dispute otherwise are that the husband of the respondent was an assistant teacher in the Adarsh Inter College, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra (for short, 'the institution'). This institution is recognized intermediate institution upon which the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as provisions of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 were applicable. The husband of the respondent was initially appointed as an ad hoc teacher on 24.11.1988. The services of the respondent's husband was subsequently regularized vide order dated 13.01.2004 w.e.f. 27.07.1998. The respondent's husband died in harness on 24.02.2012. At the time of his death, he was around 56 years of age. A claim for payment of gratuity was raised by the respondent on the ground that the computation of gratuity ought to be after taking into consideration the services rendered in ad hoc capacity from 1988 to 1998. This submission is based upon the provisions contained under Rule 5 of the Rules for Grant of Gratuity to the Teachers of Aided Educational Institutions. Rule 5(2) defines continuous service in following terms: "5 (2) 'Continuous Service' means all whole-time service whether temporary, officiating or permanent, rendered either in one or more of the State aided educational institutions of nay of the categories mentioned in Rule 3 and includes all periods spent on leave on average pay, or on medical certificate, but it does not include leave without pay. " Reliance was also placed upon Rule 19 (b) of the Rules of 1964, as per which continuous service followed with regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension. The appellant-State and its authorities although accepted the claim for payment of gratuity but restricted its benefit only to the period after services of the respondent's husband was regularized. The issue before the authorities therefore, was as to whether the ad hoc working prior to regularization was to be counted towards continuous service for the purposes of payment of gratuity or not. It is in this context that the writ petition came to be filed by the respondent challenging the order of the authorities sanctioning gratuity. Prayer clause of the writ petition reads as under: "(i) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and to quash the order dated 23.03.2024, so far it relates to the point no. 4, whereby direction has been given to send the proposal of gratuity, calculating in the light of government order dated 01.03.2021. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to pay the amount of gratuity of rupees 8,69,336/- to the petitioner. " Learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the respondent after returning a finding that the period of ad hoc service prior to regularization of the respondent's husband was liable to be counted for the purposes of payment of gratuity. Thus aggrieved, the appellant-State is before this Court. The only ground argued by Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ, inasmuch as the limited prayer made in the writ petition did not envisage the relief allowed by the learned Single Judge to the respondent's husband. Submission of learned State counsel also is that reasoning is the soul of an order and in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, there is no discussion or consideration with regard to entitlement to receive gratuity. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. This is so as the tenor of the judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly shows that the discussion and finding of the Court was in the context of computation of gratuity and the issue was the inclusion of services rendered on ad hoc basis, for such purposes. Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- petitioner opposes such contention. The prayer clause of the writ petition is already extracted above. The order of the authority sanctioning gratuity on 01.03.2021 was under challenge in the writ. By this order, the claim of gratuity was restricted to the period during which the respondent's husband worked as teacher after his regularization. The second prayer was to pay the amount of gratuity amounting to Rs. 8,69,336/- after taking into consideration the ad hoc service also. Once that be the prayer, we hold that the learned Single Judge was clearly justified in examining the question as to for which period and to what extent, the claim of gratuity was liable to be allowed. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 976 of 2023 to hold that the period of ad hoc service prior to regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Learned Single Judge has followed the reasoning assigned in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 976 of 2023, as well as various other judgments wherein similar view has been taken. Learned State counsel has not been able to demonstrate any illegality in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to count the ad hoc services for computation of gratuity. Once that be so, we find that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge to grant relief in favour of the respondent, merits no interference. The special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Noman Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad