Allahabad High Court
Laxmi Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21081 of 2022
Petitioner :- Laxmi Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ved Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 4 by which the amount of gratuity claimed by petitioner of her husband has been refused on the ground that deceased has not attained the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Junior School, Khoorahat Vikas Khand Ranipur, District Mau died on 29.4.2021. 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 on prescribed proforma before the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 4 rejected the same vide order dated 18.11.2022 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not attained the age of 60 years during service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides as under:-
"4. Payment of gratuity. ?
(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,?
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement."
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. 4 and in turn the the Respondent No. 4 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 18.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 4 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. 4.
In the eventuality of such representation being filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 4, it is directed that the respondent No. 4 shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all aspects of the matter including the provisions of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, 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. 4 to pass appropriate orders.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
Ravi Prakash
