Allahabad High Court
Smt. Indu Lata Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8057 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Indu Lata Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishwarya Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Utkarsh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Utkarsh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jai Ram Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make the payment of gratuity along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner, namely, Prakash Narayan Singh, was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12th August, 1982 in Primary School, Basuhara, Vikas Khand Haliya, District Mirzapur under dying-in-harness rules. Unfortunately, on 3rd May, 2021, the husband of the petitioner expired during harness. 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. On enquiry being made, the petitioner has been informed by respondents 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 60 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 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. She 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 her grievances, supported by such documents, as she 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 :- 26.5.2022
Sushil/-
