Allahabad High Court
Jai Narain Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7897 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jai Narain Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Syed Nadeem Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 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 District Basic Education Officer, Mau i.e. respondent no.3 to release the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to the wife of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wife of the petitioner, namely, Rita Dwivedi, was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29th December, 1998 in Basic Primary School, Dhanauli, Dohrightat, Mau by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau i.e. respondent no.3. After some period, the wife of the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Higher Primary School, Galibpur, Mohammadad, District Mau on 9th August, 2011 by respondent no.3. When the wife of the petitioner was working Higher Primary SChool AAdedih, Pardahan, Mau, she expired during harness. The work of the wife of the petitioner during her entire service was to the utmost satisfaction of his superior authorities. After death of his wife, 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 his wife has not been paid to him. On enquiry being made, the petitioner has been informed by respondents verbally that as per Government Orders, as the wife of the petitioner i.e. deceased employee did not submit any application to opt retirement at the age of 60 years, the amount of gratuity could not be paid to her or the petitioner after her 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 deprived the dependents to gratuity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 07.11.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 and as such similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also.
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 also made several applications for redressal of her grievances, before the authority concerned but the same has gone unattended till date.
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 his grievances, supported by such documents, as he may be advised, before respondent no.3, 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
Sushil/-
