Rani Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11776 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5483 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Rani Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Basic Edu. Govt. Civil Secret. Lucknow And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranav Pandey,Ashish Chandra Asthana
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rajiv Singh Chuahan
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State, Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and Shri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.

Petitioner's husband who was an Assistant Teacher is said to have died on 06.09.2020, however, gratuity is not being paid to the petitioner-his wife on the ground that option was not exercised by husband before his death.

Similar issues have already been decided with by various decisions of this Court one of which is dated 19.03.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.5341 (S/S) of 2021 [Johra Begum vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] and it reads as under:-

"Heard.

The petitioner's husband is no more. She seeks gratuity which was payable to him in view of U.P. School and College Teachers Gratuity Fund Rules, 1964 as also the Government Order dated 23.11.1994.

Shri Ghaus Beg admits the fact that the G.O. dated 23.11.1994 relating to payment of gratuity to teachers of basic schools is referable to Section 13 of Basic Education Act, 1972 which has been promulgated subsequent to the Rules of 1964 and is more beneficial. As regards the requirement of option in the said Government Order the counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in 2008(10) ADJ 63 wherein it has been held that if death of a person is on account of unforeseen circumstances which could not be predicted, it cannot be presumed that the employee would have chosen to retire at particular age much prior in time than the contingency of achieving the age of retirement, therefore, the requirement of option would not apply in such a case. The said decision has been followed in subsequent decisions in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region & Others 2012 (1) LCD 674 and several other cases.

Shri Ghaus Beg could not dispute this legal position.

In view of the above, the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before them. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option under the Government Order dated 23.11.1994.

The petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms. "

For the reasons already given in the said judgment, this writ petition is disposed of in the terms thereof.

.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 30.8.2022

R.K.P.