Allahabad High Court
Smt. Tripura Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4763 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Tripura Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Dwivedi,Alok Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Byas Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Ved Byas Mishra has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.
Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the orders dated 18.9.2014 and 5.5.2015 passed by respondent no.1 to the extent not granting GPF plus family pension in favour of the petitioners, who are widows of the deceased employees and for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant family pension and GPF in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.8.1995.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.2.2021 passed in Writ-A No.12482 of 2020 (Smt. Kunti Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and as such it is contended that the petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefit. For ready reference, the order dated 3.2.2021 is quoted as under:-
"Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 i.e. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Prayagraj 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 Pradeep Kumar Shukla, the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 3.4.1987. It has been further stated that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.8.2016 while still in service. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 1.3.1959 and the copy of the High School Certificate of the husband of the petitioner in support of the aforesaid contention has been annexed as Annexure No.'1' to the supplementary affidavit.
In pursuance to the previous orders passed by this Court, the counsel for the respondent no.4 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 counsel for the respondent no.4, the appointment of the husband of the petitioner and his death as well as his date of birth is not disputed.
In view of the fact that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 1.3.1959, the husband of the petitioner would have retired if opted for retirement at the age of 60 years, on 1.3.2019. In the circumstances, the husband of the petitioner died before the last date to opt for retirement at the age of 60 years expired.
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 Basic Education Officer-Kanpur Dehat, i.e., respondent No.4 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."
So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands allowed in terms of the judgment in Smt. Kunti Devi (Supra).
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
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.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
SP/
