Smt. Aparna Tripathi vs State Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10304 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6584 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Aparna Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Basic Education And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Om Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.

Heard Shri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Sandeep Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent 1 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3.

Briefly stated case of the Petitioner is that her mother-in-law late Vimla Tripathi had joined the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1980 and she had died on 21.8.2006. The Petitioner applied for payment of gratuity after death of her mother-in-law but no action was taken on her representations. It is stated that the authorities orally informed the Petitioner that her mother-in-law late Vimla Tripathi had not exercised her option for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, she is not entitled for payment of gratuity.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Anoop Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018 ADJ 63 wherein after relying upon various earlier decisions, this Court held that for rejection of the Petitioner's claim of payment of gratuity on the ground that the employee had not exercised his option, is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the order of rejection was quashed and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner for payment of gratuity afresh, which shall not be rejected on the ground that the Petitioner's wife had not exercised her option. The aforesaid decisions has been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 02.06.2022 passed in Writ A No. 3410 of 2022.

Accordingly, keeping in view the proposition of law laid down as in the aforesaid case, the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner for payment of gratuity within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them and it is provided that while considering the merit of the claim, it shall not be rejected on the ground that the mother-in-law of the Petitioner had not exercised her option for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years.

However, there shall no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 16.8.2022

sks