Allahabad High Court
Smt. Mithlesh Kumari vs State Of U P And 6 Others on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14415 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Mithlesh Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
By the impugned order dated 11.11.2020, the claim of the petitioner for disbursal of the gratuity amount payable to her deceased husband has been invalidated.
The sole ground for negating the claim for grant of gratuity amount payable to the deceased husband was that the husband of the petitioner did not exercise his option for retirement at the age of 60 years while he was in service. It is a pure question of law; as to whether the failure of the deceased husband of the petitioner to exercise his option for retirement prior to his retirement can deny the gratuity claim of the wife or dependents of the employee.
It is pertinent to mention here that the husband of the petitioner died in harness before his superannuation. This legal issue has been settled by good authority of this Court. The authorities are long but consistent. In Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. and others, rendered in Writ A No. 40568 of 2016, this Court issued the following directions and held as under:
"Government Order dated 16th September, 2009 provides for revision of pension and other retiral benefits to the retired employees of the department of basic education. This Government Order grants higher benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Clause 4(1) of the Government Order provides that pension would not be payable to those employees, who have not completed 10 years of qualifying service, but the employees who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years would be entitled to gratuity and other service benefits. The Government Order does not restrict payment of gratuity to an employee, who is otherwise covered under the scheme just because he has not attained the age of 60 years. Reference to age of 60 years is due to fact that age of superannuation under the rule is otherwise 60 years. Position has otherwise been clarified by Clause 5 of the Government Order, which provides that gratuity would be payable at the age of 60 years or upon death. The respondents, therefore, were not justified in rejecting petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity, in terms of Government Order dated 16.9.2009. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained. Order dated 8.7.2016 is, accordingly, quashed.
A direction is issued to the respondents to compute the amount payable to petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed."
The judgment in Noor Jahan (supra) was thereafter followed in Renu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others, rendered in Writ A No. 14397 of 2019, Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ A No. 17399 of 2019 and Munesh Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others rendered in Writ A No. 2034 of 2020.
Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the applicability of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case.
In such view of the matter, the order impugned dated 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 5, being in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in Noor Jahan (supra), Renu Gupta (supra), Ushra Rani (supra) and Munesh Devi (supra), is unsustainable in law.
The order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 5, is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 5-District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, to execute the following directions:
I. The respondent no. 5-District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, shall pass appropriate orders for disbursal of the gratuity amount payable to the husband of the petitioner in light of the observations made in this order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
II. The respondent no.3-Additional Director, Treasury, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur and the respondent no. 6-Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Saharanpur, are directed to immediately process the claim for disbursal of the amount to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
Dhananjai
