Allahabad High Court
Zahida Begum vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13159 of 2020
Petitioner :- Zahida Begum
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities especially District Inspector of Schools, District-Saharanpur and the Finance & Account Officer, Office of District Inspector of Schools, District-Saharanpur, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to pay the death-cum-gratuity of the husband of the petitioner to the petitioner alongwith reasonable interest.
It has been stated in the writ petition that Late Shaukat Ali, the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade on 13.12.1981, but was subsequently promoted as Lecturer Urdu on 26.6.2004 in Islamia Inter College, Eidgah Road, District-Saharanpur. It has been further stated that the husband of the petitioner died on 21.4.2010 while still in service.
In pursuance to the previous orders passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has received instructions and states that the gratuity cannot be paid to the petitioner because the husband of the petitioner did not opt for retirement at the age of 60 years in accordance with the relevant Government Order.
In the instructions received by the Standing Counsel the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is stated to be 20.11.1950. The appointment of the husband of the petitioner and his death is not disputed in the instructions received by the Standing Counsel.
In view of the fact that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 20.11.1950. The husband of the petitioner would have retired if opted for retirement at the age of 60 years on 20.11.2010 and under the session benefit scheme would have continued in service till 30.6.2011. In the circumstances, the last date for the husband of the petitioner to opt for retirement at the age of 60 years would have been 1.7.2010. The husband of the petitioner died before the said date.
The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 7.11.2019 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others) as well as the judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 14397 of 2019 wherein this Court has affirmed the previous judgment of this Court passed in Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) wherein the Court held that in view of the Government Order dated 16th September, 2009, an employee, who has not attained the age of 60 years, would also be entitled to gratuity if he is otherwise covered under the scheme formulated through the aforesaid Government Order. Clause 5 of the said Government Order provides that gratuity would be payable at the age of 60 years or upon death.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The District Inspector of Schools, District-Saharanpur and the Finance & Account Officer, Office of District Inspector of Schools, District-Saharanpur, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity in terms of the scheme formulated by the Government Order dated 16th September, 2009 and release the amount within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application for gratuity till the amount is actually disbursed.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
Anurag/-
