Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85223 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55742 of 2013 Petitioner :- Purushottam Singh Sikarwar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the order dated 20.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) Agra, region Agra, with a consequential prayer to release the arrears of payment of gratuity i.e., an amount of Rs.1,92,308/- with interest. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 15.12.1982 and his services were regularized on 12.06.1985 and the petitioner has retired from service on 30.06.2012. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for release of gratuity by calculating his services from his initial appointment i.e. from 15.12.1982, as the GPF was collected from September, 1991 instead of collecting from 1982. 3. Though the letter was issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra on 22.10.2012 stating that the petitioner has deposited the GPF from November, 1993 to February 1995 in 16 installments. But without taking that into consideration the respondents have calculated the GPF only from 1991. 4. In fact an identical issue fell for consideration before this Court in a bunch of writ petitions in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45217 of 2012 (Buddhiram Vs. The State of U.P. and Others), and this Court has passed the following order:- "In view of this, qua incumbents who have been appointed in the said institution and said institution in question has been included in the grant-in- aid list of the State Government prior to 01.04.2005 qua them last opportunity be given by the State Government for enabling them to deposit managerial contribution alongwith with interest and thereafter whatever benefit of the aforesaid old scheme is liable to be extended, the same be extended to said category of incumbents. In respect of institution who have been included in the grant-in-aid list after 01.04.2005 the incumbents working therein their claim would be governed under new pension scheme. In view of aforesaid discussion, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45217 of 2012; 45229 of 2012 are dismissed. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47649 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44742 of 2012 are allowed. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55778 of 2010 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47000 of 2010 are dismissed. Petitioner's whose writ petition has been allowed are permitted to deposit contribution with interest within two months from today, and in the event of deposit being made, then benefit of Government Order be extended to them, subject to fulfillment of other terms and condition." 5. In the said bunch of writ petitions, persons who have not deposited the GPF amount in institutions, those institutions have included in grant-in-aid list after 01.04.2005 by the said order. The benefit is extended to those persons by giving liberty to them to deposit the contributory fund in GPF within two months. 6. But in the instant case, as the petitioner has already deposited the differential amount in 16 installments and the same is evident by the letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra vide order dated 22.10.2012. The said order is also annexed along with the writ petition. 7. After notice to the respondents, they have filed counter affidavit. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the proposal of District Inspector of Schools, Agra for providing pensionary benefits by treating the qualified service from the date of his initial appointment, against which an objection has been raised by the Regional Audit Unit that the gratuity amount of the petitioner should be paid to the petitioner on the basis of his 41 six monthly services by treating qualified service of the petitioner since 01.09.1991. Even as per the letter of the petitioner dated 28.05.2013 the matter once again scrutinized by the Regional Audit Unit and held that the service rendered by the petitioner dated 01.01.1991 in which GPF amount was not deducted and could not be treated as qualified service. 8. In reply to the said contentions the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit wherein he specifically stated that 41, six monthly services and his GPF was deducted from 01.09.1991. But in fact the petitioner has paid the differential amount from 1982 to 1991 in 16 equal installments, but the same was not taken into consideration. 9. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels and also on perusal of the record the controversy involved in the present writ petition is only with regard to whether the contributory fund of GPF has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner from 1982 to 1991 or not. Though, the respondents have specifically stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner has not deducted his contribution from 1982 to 1991, hence, he is not entitled for calculation of the gratuity from 1982. But on perusal of Annexure No.5 filed alongwith the writ petition discloses that the differential amount has been deposited in 16 equal installments by the petitioner and the same is considered by District Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 22.10.2012. 10. In view of the said as the petitioner has already deposited the differential amount, the respondents are directed to consider his claim by calculating gratuity from 1982 and release the said differential amount within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad