The Basic Shiksha Adhikari ... vs Devvrit And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2749 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 265 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- The Basic Shiksha Adhikari District Farrukhabad
 
Respondent :- Devvrit And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Yatindra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Shukla,Shashi Kant Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-respondent and learned counsel for the respondents-petitioner.

2. This special appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.8069 of 2021 (Devvrit vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors.) whereby the appellant-respondent has been directed to calculate and release the amount of gratuity due and payable to the deceased wife of the respondent-petitioner, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

3. The question of payment of gratuity to the teachers has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2019 in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.19089 of 2022 (The State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Usha Rani), decided on 29.04.2022, observing as under:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the instant petition.

We find no reason to interfere in the order impugned in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

We direct the State Authority to make the payment of gratuity in terms of order of the High Court impugned in the instant proceedings to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today failing which that amount shall carry further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. until payment and a report of compliance be sent to this Court.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

4. The impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge solely relying upon the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) passed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that facts of the case of the respondent-petitioner and facts in the case of Usha Rani (supra) are similar.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Consequently, this special appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.5.2022

SK