Allahabad High Court
Neelam Gautam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9596 of 2022
Petitioner :- Neelam Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Krishna Kant Vishwakarma, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity consequent upon death of petitioner's husband along with interest.
Husband of the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in Shri Swami Adarsh Inter College Tarauli Mathura. He died on 28.4.2018. Grievance of the petitioner is that though other retiral benefits have been paid but the amount of gratuity has not been released. For the said grievance, the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 3.9.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) before the respondent no. 3 but no order has been passed till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 8605 of 2022, Guru Charan v. State of U.P. and others. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
"65. In the present bunch of petition, the predecessors of petitioner have passed away without performing the extra years of service between the ages of 58 years to 60 years. Thus the very purpose of denying gratuity to such persons is inapplicable.
66. Viewed from this perspective, grant of benefit of gratuity in such circumstances is directly relatable to the Rules of 1981 itself and therefore there is no occasion for the respondents to hold that change in option is being sought by family members of the deceased who fail to exercise the option since the grant of benefit of gratuity is the natural corollary of extra years of service not being rendered by the predecessors of petitioner. The second aspect of the matter of course, is that predecessors have passed away prior to the time when they were required to submit their options in terms of the various Government Orders and therefore also since they did not have an opportunity to change their option, naturally the family member being successors to their interest would have a right to exercise that option in terms of the Government Order. As such answer to the question is that the grant of gratuity is a natural corollary to services not being rendered for the extra period of two years in terms of conditions of Rules of 1981 and as such, such an option once granted earlier can definitely be revised.
67. In view of aforesaid answers to the two questions, it is held that the denial of grant of gratuity to the petitioners in terms of conditions of Rules of 1981 is clearly contrary to provisions not only of the aforesaid Rules of 1981 but to the consequent Government Orders as well. Considering the aforesaid, the orders impugned rejecting grant of benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioners being bad in law are quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the concerned authority to make payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioners in terms of Rules of 1981. Calculation for same and actual payment of benefits shall be accorded within a period of six months from the date of a copy of this is produced before the concerned authority.
68. Resultantly, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs."
Learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served by calling for counter affidavit and keeping this writ petition pending. He submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the authority concerned and the appropriate orders shall be passed within a stipulated period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into merits, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura, respondent no. 3, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 3.9.2021 by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 10.8.2022
S.S.
