Others Had Already Won This. The State Still Made Them Come To Court.
Retired university teachers were told their representations would be disposed of on their own terms, despite two earlier judgments settling the point for people exactly like them.
The Court held that the earlier judgments of 1 November 2017 and 18 November 2021 in respect of similarly situated employees of the University were judgments in rem. The Government Order and the consequential office order were quashed, and a writ of mandamus issued to the State to pay gratuity with 6 per cent interest individually to each member of the petitioner association.
- A judgment in rem binds beyond its parties, and a similarly situated employee need not litigate the same point again.
- Two rounds already decided it, the second affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- Six per cent interest, paid individually to each member of the association.
- The State's objections all failed — court fee, necessary party, and the reliance on distinguishable authority.
- Court
- High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH
- Citation
- Writ Petition No. 131 of 2023 (S/B)
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 131 of 2023 (S/B)
- Decided
- 1 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; G.O. quashed and mandamus issued to pay gratuity
What the State had said
The petitioner association challenged the last part of a Government Order of 27 September 2022, which provided that as regards others, their representations may be disposed of on their own terms — in effect declining to extend to them what had already been decided.
A consequential office order of 31 October 2022 followed.
Why that could not stand
Judgments of 1 November 2017 and, subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, of 18 November 2021, had decided the entitlement in respect of similarly situated employees of the same University.
Those judgments operate in rem. The principle had been reiterated in the authority the State itself relied on, which placed reliance on Arvind Kumar Srivastava.
The decision in N. Manoharan, also relied on by the State, was distinguishable: there the benefit of the Gratuity Act was sought under two different statutes, and no such question arose here.
The remaining objections
On court fee, it had been paid on behalf of all the members of the petitioner association, so that objection failed.
On the State of Uttar Pradesh being a necessary party, the impugned Government Order contains no reference to the rejection being on account of a financial implication falling on that State, so that argument did not hold water.
The Government Order and the office order were quashed, and a writ of mandamus issued to the State to pay gratuity with 6 per cent interest individually to each member, in the light of the earlier judgments.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Do I have to sue separately if others already won the same point?
Not where the earlier judgment operates in rem and you are similarly situated. The State was directed to pay each member here.
What interest was ordered?
Six per cent, on the gratuity payable individually to each member.
Claiming the benefit of a judgment you were not party to
- Establish that the earlier judgment operates in rem, and that your client is similarly situated on the same facts.
- Put both the original judgment and any affirmation on record; the Supreme Court's affirmation carried weight here.
- Distinguish the authorities the State relies on rather than ignoring them.
- Where an association sues, pay court fee for every member and say so.
Source. High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, Writ Petition No. 131 of 2023 (S/B), decided 1 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA SAH. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in