Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar Saxena vs State Of Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Of ... on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3551 of 2022
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Saxena
Respondent :- State Of Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranav Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rajiv Singh Chuahan
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
Petitioner's wife died while in service in the year 2021. She was an Assistant Teacher in a primary school. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that she was about 40 years of age at the time of her death. The petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, claims gratuity.
The issue involved is covered by a recent judgment of this Court dated 24.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.5345 (S/S) of 2021 [Anoop Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] which reads as under:-
"Heard.
The petitioner's wife Anita Kumari was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 06.07.2011. On 20.11.2015 she expired on account of illness. Husband i.e. the petitioner herein claimed death-cum-retirement gratuity. Gratuity has been denied by the impugned order dated 27.08.2020 on the ground that his wife had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years as against the normal retirement at the age of 62 years, therefore, she was not entitled to gratuity.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that death of his wife happened suddenly and could not be foreseen. Moreover, the wife had joined service barely four years ago and she was of 41 years, whereas the option could be exercised prior to 60 years at any time.
Sri Rajeev Singh Chauhan, Advocate agrees to the extent that she could have exercised her option prior to attaining the age of 60 years and any option thereafter would not be acceptable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there are certain government orders which say that option has to be exercised within the last year in which she would attain the age of 60 years.
Be that as it may, in either eventuality she could not have foreseen her death and had not reached anyway near 60 years, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar v. State of U.P. & ors., 2008 10 ADJ 63 which has been followed in the subsequent decision in the case of Anguri Devi v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region & ors., reported in (2012) 1 LCD 674 and several other case as also a recent decision dated 19.03.2021 in Writ Petition No. 5341 (SS) of 2021 the ground for rejection of petitioner's claim for gratuity is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.
The concerned opposite party is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's wife had not exercised her option as referred hereinabove, as there was no occasion for the same.
It is open for the petitioner to claim interest on the amount due as per law.
The writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. "
Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed of in the light of the aforesaid judgment directing the Basic Education Officer concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's wife had not exercised her option as referred hereinabove, as there was no occasion for the same in the sense that she could not have foreseen her death at the age of 40 years and had not reached anywhere near 60 years so as to exercise her option.
.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
R.K.P.
