Allahabad High Court
Maheshwari Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 3 December, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19689 of 2022
Petitioner :- Maheshwari Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Sri P. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order 11.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, and for commanding the respondents to pay amount of gratuity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 15.02.1996. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died on 16.10.2019 while serving. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after completing all requisite formalities for release of death cum retirement benefits, the petitioner moved an application before the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly. The Respondent No.3, pursuant to the said application released the family pension in favour of the petitioner but the amount of gratuity was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2022 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not submitted the option to retire at the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of filing of this writ petition would be served, if petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation before the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, and in turn the the Respondent No.3, may be directed to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents submits that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending as the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.
Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the judgments passed in the above writ petitions, the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh comprehensive representation clearly setting forth his claim within a period of 10 days from today before the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly.
In the eventuality of such representation being filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, it is directed that the Respondent No.3, shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all aspects of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the Respondent No.3, to pass appropriate orders.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
pks
