Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs Rajni Sharma And Another on 7 June, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 308 of 2021
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Respondent :- Rajni Sharma And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Rathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Challenge in this intra-court appeal is to an order dated 06.10.2020 passed in Writ A No.6361 of 2020 whereby learned Single Judge on a finding that the husband of the respondent no.1 was employed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade who died-in-harness, held her entitled for gratuity as her late husband did not opt for retirement at the age of 60 years. Accordingly learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 21.12.2019 which declined the claim of the petitioner for gratuity.
At the outset it is contended on behalf of respondent that the issue as to entitlement of an incumbent for grant of gratuity having not opted to retire at extended age of 60 year, qua the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 is settled, reliance is placed on order passed in Special Appeal Defective No.64/2021 (District Basic Education Officer and another Vs. Raj Kumari and 4 others) decided on 25.1.2021, Special Appeal Defective No.40/2021 (State of U.P. and 6 others Vs. Usha Rani) decided on 28.1.2021, Special Appeal Defective No.89/2021 (State of U.P. and 6 others Vs. Prem Kumari and another) decided on 29.1.2021 and Special Appeal No.92/2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Shukla and another) decided on 26.3.2021.
In Special Appeal Defective No.64/2021 (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held :-
"As per the Government Order 16.09.2009, 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. The said aspect has been considered in detail in catena of judgements of this Court in Writ-A No. 40568 of 2016 (Noor Jahan vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 4.1.2018, Writ-A No. 8679 of 2018 (Smt. Omwati Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) decided on 9.3.2018, Writ-A No. 6049 of 2019 (Smt. Brijesh vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 26.04.2019 and Service Single No. 6173 of 2014 (Smt. Mala Tripathi vs. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. & Ors.) decided on 5.8.2019. The said controversy was again before this Court in Writ-A No. 14397 of 2019 (Renu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) in which the Court relying upon the aforesaid judgments allowed the writ petition vide order dated 24.10.2019.
While passing the order impugned, reliance has been placed upon Usha Rani (supra), wherein, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of gratuity on the ground that he has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years. Relying on the judgement passed in Noor Jahan (supra), Smt. Omwati (supra) and Smt. Brijesh (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court in Usha Rani (supra) has asked the respondents to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months period within inter at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed.
The dispute in hand has been considered by this Court in Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (supra) as well as Veeramwati (supra). The Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar (supra) and Veeramwati (supra). The Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The present appeal sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed."
Similar view is taken in other appeals.
In view whereof we find that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Special Appeal Defective No.64/2021 (supra).
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 7.6.2021
Pramod Tripathi
(Prakash Padia,J.) (Sanjay Yadav,A.C.J.)
