Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi vs State Of U P And 6 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14717 of 2020
Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Devi
Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner are taken on record. Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Bhola Nath Yadav on behalf of respondent no. 4.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Saharanpur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the gratuity due to her husband.
The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Pawan Kumar was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29.08.1986 and died on 11.06.2017 while still in service. The date of birth of the husband of the petitioner as evident from the High School mark-sheet annexed with the supplementary affidavit was 1.2.1962. The petitioner applied for death-cum-gratuity benefit of her husband but the same has been denied on the ground that during his service, the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years and, therefore, under the relevant Government Orders, he was not entitled to gratuity.
The counter affidavit filed by the counsel for respondent no. 4 does not dispute the appointment of the husband of the petitioner, his date of birth and his date of death while still in service.
It is evident from the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner that if he had been alive, he would have retired in 2022 if he had opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
The controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.
The present writ petition is squarely covered by the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgements.
The writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, the judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Saharanpur is, hereby, quashed.
The Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpu, District Basic Education Officer, District Saharanpur and Finance & Accounts Officer (Basic Education), District Saharanpur, i.e., respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity quantified in accordance with the relevant Government Orders 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, ignoring the fact that the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
IB
