Allahabad High Court
Sonmati vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12367 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sonmati
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Shere Ali,Shailesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent.
By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity of husband of the petitioner along with admissible interest.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband namely late Balram was working as Assistant Teacher in Chingud Ram Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kolhui Bazar, District Maharajganj. He died while in service on 8.5.2021. It is submitted that petitioner's husband had not completed 60 years of service which may require him to give any option for continuance in service up to 60 years of age but the gratuity payment is not being made on that very count.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra) with the submission that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment in SLP No.19089 of 2021 has already been rejected by means of order dated 29.04.2022.
Considering the aforesaid, it is submitted that on account of same, petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity in terms of Judgement rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is extracted hereinafter:-
"............ Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied.
Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.
From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue.
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 30.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 7- Block Education Officer Block Kadarchauk, District Badaun is hereby quashed.
Respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ............"
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that claim of petitioner can be examined by the authorities in terms of the above direction forthwith.
Since similar controversy has already been adjudicated in previous matters, this petition is disposed of on the same terms. It is provided that respondents shall calculate and release the amount of gratuity due and payable to deceased husband of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before the authority concerned, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
The claim of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option as referred to herein above as there was no occasion for the same. It is also open for the petitioner to claim interest on the amount due as per law and a decision shall be taken in this regard also.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
