Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neelam Vimal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2540 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Vimal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranav Pandey,Priyanshu Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rajiv Singh Chuahan
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
The petitioner's husband was appointed as assistant teacher in a primary school in 2006. Unfortunately he died of ailment in 2021 while in service. The petitioner, his wife, has been paid the pension etc., but the death-cum-retirement gratuity has not been paid. The reason for it appears to be, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, that the petitioner's husband while alive did not fill in the option for the said benefit.
This Court has already considered this issue in writ petition No. 5345(SS) of 2021, Anoop Kumar v. State of U.P. & ors. The judgement rendered in the said case which is reported in 2018 ADJ 63 also, reads and under:
"Heard.
The petitioner's wife Anita Kumari was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 06.07.2011. On 20.11.2015 she expired on account of illness. Husband i.e. the petitioner herein claimed death-cum-retirement gratuity. Gratuity has been denied by the impugned order dated 27.08.2020 on the ground that his wife had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years as against the normal retirement at the age of 62 years, therefore, she was not entitled to gratuity.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that death of his wife happened suddenly and could not be foreseen. Moreover, the wife had joined service barely four years ago and she was of 41 years, whereas the option could be exercised prior to 60 years at any time.
Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, Advocate agrees to the extent that she could have exercised her option prior to attaining the age of 60 years and any option thereafter would not be acceptable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there are certain government orders which say that option has to be exercised within the last year in which she would attain the age of 60 years.
Be that as it may, in either eventuality she could not have foreseen her death and had not reached anyway near 60 years, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar v. State of U.P. & ors., 2008 10 ADJ 63 which has been followed in the subsequent decision in the case of Anguri Devi v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region & ors., reported in (2012) 1 LCD 674 and several other case as also a recent decision dated 19.03.2021 in Writ Petition No. 5341 (SS) of 2021 the ground for rejection of petitioner's claim for gratuity is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.
The concerned opposite party is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's wife had not exercised her option as referred hereinabove, as there was no occasion for the same.
It is open for the petitioner to claim interest on the amount due as per law.
The writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms."
The aforesaid petition was decided at Allahabad on 7.11.2012, against which special appeal was filed bearing special appeal defective No. 89 of 2021 which was dismissed. As the law has been declared and clarified by this court as aforesaid, therefore, the petitioner's claim is also liable to be considered by the concerned opposite party accordingly in the light of the said judgement. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement, meaning thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the observations/directions contained in the said judgement on the same terms. The claim shall be considered and decided accordingly. The benefits admissible shall be paid accordingly. With these observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
Shanu/-
