Pushpa Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Dept. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8663 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4773 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Pushpa Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Dept. Of Basic Edu. U.P. Govt. Lucknow And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Keshari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya
 

 
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.

Heard Shri Amit Kumar Keshari, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Sandeep Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.

Briefly stated case of the Petitioner is that her husband Late Dilip Kumar Yadav had joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 17.12.1999 and he had died on 16.09.2021. The Petitioner applied for payment of gratuity after death of his husband but no action was taken on her representations. It is stated that the authorities orally informed the Petitioner that her husband Late Dilip Kumar Yadav had not exercised his 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 husband had not exercised his 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 3 and 4 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 husband of the Petitioner had not exercised his option for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years.

However, there shall no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 1.8.2022

Pks