Allahabad High Court
Shamajaleel vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8262 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shamajaleel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 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 release the death-cum-retirement gratuity in light of the services rendered by her husband with interest in faovur of the petitioner as soon as possible. The petitioner has further prayed that a direction be issued to respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity in light of the law laid down by this Court in Writ-A No. 1751 of 2021 (Manorma Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Others) as well as in Writ-A NO. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner, namely, Waseem Akhtar, was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 6th October, 1993 in Primary School, Block-Kant, Shahjahanpur. Unfortunately, on 13th January, 2017, 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.
It is made clear that while considering the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity of her husband, respondent no.3 shall not reject the same only on the ground that the deceased employee did not make any application to opt his retirement at the age of 60 years.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 30.5.2022
Sushil/-
