Allahabad High Court
Meena Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 21 January, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11167 of 2020
Petitioner :- Meena Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Basic Education Officer-District-Kannauj and the Finance and Account Officer, (Basic Education), District Kannauj i.e. respondent nos.5 and 6 to pay to the petitioner the death-cum-retirement gratuity of her husband alongwith 18% p.a.
It has been stated in the writ petition that husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in a primary school and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head-Master and died on 12.10.2006 while posted as Head-Master in Primary School-Bhuagitapur, District Kannauj.
It has been stated in the writ petition that Shri Ram Nivas Dwivedi, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.9.1987 and it is apparent from the records annexed with the writ petition that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 1.1.1955. It has been stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner died at the age of 51 years.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh representing respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 has received instructions and on the basis of instructions states that the death-cum-retirement gratuity amount of the husband of the petitioner is not being released as the husband of the petitioner had not given his option for retirement at the age of 60 years. In the instructions received by Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, the date of birth of the petitioner, his appointment and his date of death has not been disputed.
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 Ors.) 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 Ors. (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.
In the present case, the last date for husband of the petitioner to opt for his age of retirement was 1.7.2014 as he would have retired at the age of 60 years on 1.1.2015 and would have continued till 30.6.2015 under the Sessions Benefit Scheme of the Government. The husband of the petitioner died before the last date on which he could have given his option for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Consequently, in light of the judgments referred above, the petitioner is entitled to receive the gratuity accrued in favour of her husband.
The writ petition is allowed.
The Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Kanpur Region Kanpur, District Basic Education Officer-Kannauj and Finance & Account Officer, (Basic Education), Kannauj i.e., respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 respectively 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 him 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 :- 21.1.2021
Jyotsana
