State Of U.P. And 6 Others vs Prem Kumari And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1749 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- Prem Kumari And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Order on Exemption Application

The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.

The defect stands cured.

Let a regular number be given to this appeal.

Order on Appeal

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 08.07.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner non-appellants was allowed. The writ petition was ordered to governed by the judgment in the case of Smt. Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. others decided on 07.11.2019 and also in the leading case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 63. In the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (Supra) facts were almost similar.

As per the government order, the employees were given option to continue in service beyond the normal period of retirement. The extension of service was permitted from 58 years to 60 years but with denial of the benefit of gratuity.

Options were sought and given by the employees in case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (Supra), but is present case, no option was given by the non-appellant to continue him in service beyond the normal age of retirement with denial of the benefit of gratuity. It is however fact that in absence of option under the government order, it was taken to be a case of deemed option and accordingly family was denied benefit of gratuity. The age of the deceased was 52 years while in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (Supra), it was 45 years.

In the light of the aforesaid, what we find that the employee who had not continued in service after attaining the age of 58 years in a given case or 60 years in other cases would mean effective option to continue in with for denial of gratuity.

Accordingly, what we find that the present case is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (Supra). An exception can be carved only when they continue in service without withdrawal of option even after the attaining the age of 58 years in a given case or beyond 60 years in other cases as normal age of retirement was changed from 58 years to 60 years by the amendment in the year 2004.

This court has taken a view to hold that an employee continue in service beyond 58 years and died thereupon would not be entitled to seek benefit of gratuity in the case of State of U.P. through its Secretary Vs. Prabha Shukla decided on 16.12.2020 but it would not be applicable to the facts of this case.

This appeal is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.1.2021

Shekhar