Allahabad High Court
Neetu Rai vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7718 of 2022
Petitioner :- Neetu Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel states that it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent no.5 as no purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending. They also agreed that this petition may be finally decided at this stage without calling for any further affidavit specially in view of the order proposed to be passed today.
Heard Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no.3 to release death-cum-retirement gratuity in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a stipulated period and further prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.02.2022 within stipulated period of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner, namely, Virendra Kumar Rai, was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade on adhoc basis and the service of the petitioner's husband was regularized by the order of Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 25.11.2020. The work of the husband of the petitioner during his entire service was to the utmost satisfaction of his superior authorities. After death of her husband, the petitioner, after completing all requisite formalities, submitted an application in a prescribed proforma before the authority concerned for payment of family pension and other retiral benefits and the same was also forwarded to the competent authority within time. Though, all dues as well as family pension have been sanctioned and released in favour of the petitioner but amount of gratuity of her husband has not been paid to her. For payment of gratuity of her husband, the petitioner approached the authority concerned on 16.02.2022, but nothing was done. He further submits that on enquiry being made, the petitioner has been informed by respondent authorities verbally that as per Government Orders, as the husband of the petitioner i.e. deceased employee did not submit any application to opt retirement at the age of 58 years, the amount of gratuity could not be paid to him or the petitioner after his death.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar case, which has arisen in the present writ petition, had already been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 63, wherein it has been held that even if the death of a person is an unforeseen circumstances, which could not have been predicted by him, it cannot presumed that the employee would have chosen to retire at the particular age much prior to in time than the contingency of achieving the age of retirement arrived. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 18th November, 2021 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1803 of 2018 (G.P. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Shri Damodar Mathpal), has held that mere exercise of the option of an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not have operated against his entitlement to gratuity and exercising of such an option will not deprive the dependents to gratuity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity of her deceased husband. The petitioner has made an application for redressal of her grievances, before the authority concerned, but no decision has been taken thereon till date, hence the present writ petition.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity of her deceased husband.
On the other-hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits in case, the petitioner makes a fresh application before the authority concerned, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioner may make a fresh representation, ventilating all her grievances, supported by such documents, as he may be advised, before respondent no.3, i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Mau, within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within three months thereafter, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
Jitendra/-
