Allahabad High Court
Bare Lal Pal And Another vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 2 August, 2022
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11254 of 2022
Petitioner :- Bare Lal Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Chandra Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he intends to withdraw the writ petition insofar as it pertains to petitioner no. 2 with liberty to file afresh separately on his behalf.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition with regard to petitioner no. 2 is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner no. 1 for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity consequent upon death of wife of the petitioner no. 1 along with interest
Wife of petitioner no. 1 was an Assistant Teacher in a Primary Institution run by the Department of Basic Education, namely, Primary School, Chak Basuhi, Block Bhadohi, District Bhadohi. She died on 03.12.2019. Grievance of the petitioner no. 1 is that though other benefits have been released but the amount of gratuity has not been released.
It appears that the amount of gratuity has not been paid on the ground that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the deceased employee.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of petitions. Reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order 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, Distruict 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. ............"
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 has represented the matter in this regard before respondent no.4, District Basic Education Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) on 18.08.2021, but nothing has been done till now.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending, therefore, an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.4 to examine the claim of the petitioner no.1 in the light of the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) within stipulated period.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.4, District Basic Education Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) to decide the representation of the petitioner no. 1 dated 18.08.2021 in the light of judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.
Claim of petitioner no. 1 for gratuity shall not be rejected only on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the wife of the petitioner no.1.
Order Date :- 2.8.2022
SKT/-
