Allahabad High Court
Sunita Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6437 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sunita Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, SriSantosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing theimpugned order dated 22.09.2021 passed byrespondent no. 3.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature ofmandamus commanding and directing the Basic ShikshaAdhikari, District Azamgarh (respondent no. 3) to take immediate steps for releasing amount of gratuity claimed by thepetitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annumwith a period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court"
Petitioner's husband was working as Assistant Teacher and wassubsequently promoted as Head Master at Prathmik Vidyalaya Ishwarpur, Block- Rani Sarai, District Azamgarh. He died on 25.01.2013. Grievance is that though other benefits have been released but the amount of gratuity has not been released. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death cum retirement gratuity consequent upon death of petitioner's husband alongwith interest.
It appears that the amount of gratuity has not been paid on the ground that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the deceased employee.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of writ petitions. Reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinafter:-
"............
Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied.
Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.
From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue.
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above.
Learned Standing counsel and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsels appearing for the respondent submit that claim of the petitioner can be examined by the authorities in terms of the above direction.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction upon respondent no. 3, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Azamgarh, to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28/29.06.2021 in light of the judgment of Usha Rani (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time. The order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 isquashed.
Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the petitioner's husband.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
Rohit
