Shankuntla Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9943 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5052 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Shankuntla Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents and Shri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.

Shri Doobar Prasad, husband of the Petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Uchch Prathamik Vidyalaya, Malookpur Deva, District Barabanki unfortunately died on 02.03.2006. The petitioner 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 Rahul Shukla, 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 judgment in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar v. State of U.P. and others 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 v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region and others, 2012 (1) LCD 674 and several other cases.

Shri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 could not dispute this legal position.

In view of the above, the Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six 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 writ petition is disposed off in view of the aforesaid terms.

Order Date :- 11.8.2022

Amit/-