Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2691 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri B. K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 and perused the record.
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.8.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad (Annexure13 to the writ petition).
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the death-cum-gratuity to the petitioner in terms of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 12.12.2019 and the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 14397 of 2019 (Renu Gupta versus State of U.P. and others) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, within the period to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 25.11.1993 and was promoted as Head Mistress in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jaundhari-I, Block Narkhi, District Firozabad. Subsequently, she died on 28.9.2018 while serving. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that except gratuity amount, petitioner was paid pension and family pension as well as the amount due against the respondent. When the respondent did not pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner for which he was entitled, therefore, he made repeated requests to the authority for releasing the gratuity, but no heed was paid by the respondents. Lastly, the petitioner made representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad as well as the Director of Education (Basic) on 4.5.2019 and again on 3.2.2020, but no heed was paid by the respondents and the petitioner was running from pillar to post.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the non-payment of the death gratuity, filed Writ-A No. 15102 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.1.2021 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months. In compliance of the said direction, respondent No.6 vide order dated 3.8.2021, rejected the claim of the petitioner that wife of the petitioner had not submitted option to retire.
Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending as 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. The order impugned dated 3.8.2021 passed by the respondent no.6, District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad is hereby quashed.
The District Basic Education Officer, District- Firozabad and the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Firozabad, i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are directed to compute the amount payable to the husband of 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 interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of death of petitioner's wife till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the wife of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022
Ravi Prakash
