Allahabad High Court
Shreyansh Srivastava And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3188 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shreyansh Srivastava And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 07.06.2021 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikar, Ayodhya declining their claim to gratuity on the ground that their mother while she was in service did not give any option for retirement at the age of 60 years thereby entailing payment of gratuity. The fact is that the mother died at the age of 49 years on 29.05.2018, therefore, obviously she was not in a position to give any such option as she could not possibly foreseen her death. The option as per the Government Order was required to be given within a year from the date of retirement . This issue is no more res integra and has already been dealt with in a judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 5341 (SS) of 2021 which reads as under:
"Heard.
The petitioner's husband is no more. She seeks gratuity which was payable to him in view of U.P. School and College Teachers Gratuity Fund Rules, 1964 as also the Government Order dated 23.11.1994.
Shri Ghaus Beg admits the fact that the G.O. dated 23.11.1994 relating to payment of gratuity to teachers of basic schools is referable to Section 13 of Basic Education Act, 1972 which has been promulgated subsequent to the Rules of 1964 and is more beneficial. As regards the requirement of option in the said Government Order the counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in 2008(10) ADJ 63 wherein it has been held that if death of a person is on account of unforeseen circumstances which could not be predicted, it cannot be presumed that the employee would have chosen to retire at particular age much prior in time than the contingency of achieving the age of retirement, therefore, the requirement of option would not apply in such a case. The said decision has been followed in subsequent decisions in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region & Others 2012 (1) LCD 674 and several other cases.
Shri Ghaus Beg could not dispute this legal position.
In view of the above, the opposite party Nos.5 and 6 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before them. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option under the Government Order dated 23.11.1994.
The petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms."
As the issue has already been decided, therefore, the impugned order for the reasons already given in the aforesaid judgment is hereby quashed.
The Basic Shiksha Adhikar, Ayodhya shall now reconsider the claim of the petitioners for gratuity in the light of the above quoted judgment. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioners' mother has not exercised her option as referred hereinabove as there was no occasion for the same. It is open for the petitioners to claim interest on the amount due as per law.
The petition is disposed of.
[Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Santosh/-
