Shreyansh Srivastava & Anr. vs State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4253 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8084 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Shreyansh Srivastava & Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha & Anr.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarendra Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners claim that they are entitled for the payment of gratuity in the light of the judgment in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and as per the judgment passed in Writ-A No.14397 of 2019 (Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & Others), wherein the Court has considered the government order dated 16.9.2009 and held that in view of the said government order, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of gratuity.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to get the similar relief as was granted by this Court following the judgment passed in Writ-A No.12482 of 2020 (Smt. Kunti Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others) dated 3.2.2021. He submits that the controversy in regard to payment of gratuity like the petitioners has finally been adjudicated and has been decided by this Court. He submits that in case direction is issued for consideration of claim of the petitioners for the grant of gratuity in a time bound manner, justice would be met.

On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that in case the claim setup by the petitioners is lying pending consideration before the respondent No.2, appropriate order in accordance with law shall be passed in a reasonable period.

After having heard the contention of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.

On perusal, it is reflected that the petitioners have claimed parity of the judgment passed in Writ-A No.12482 of 2020 (Smt. Kunti Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Others), which has been decided by taking notice of two other writ petitions referred hereinabove.

In view of the above, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending before this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for the payment of gratuity in the light of the judgment referred hereinabove and to pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

Gautam