Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pankaj Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 10 November, 2022
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7425 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Pankaj Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Edu. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Awasthi,Shubham Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard, Sri Kamal Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to opposite party no.5 is dispensed with.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the death-cum-retirement gratuity of her husband, namely, Devi Shankar Lal, who died during service period on 20.08.2020 at the age of 56 years while he was working as Assistant Teacher in Jai Bharat Intermediate College, Mathura Nagar, Ramgarh, District-Sultanpur.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been granted the family pension and all other retiral dues, but the gratuity has not been paid only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not exercised the option of retirement at the age of 60 years, which was earlier 58 years. The husband of the petitioner had died at the age of 56 years. Therefore even if the option was not exercised by the husband of the petitioner the gratuity cannot be denied because the age for exercising the option had not come and before that he died. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity under the Government Order dated 6th of October 1990 issued by the Education Department and the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed in a bunch of writ petitions, leading of which is Writ-A No.14575 of 2021; Shikha Sharma Versus State of U.P. and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said order has not been challenged further and has also been complied with in respect to many of the petitioners therein.
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and in terms of the Government Order dated 6th of October 1990, which has been passed in furtherance of Government Order dated 31 March, 1978, Government Order dated 28 July, 1978 and Government Order dated 3 November 1978 and the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 rendered in the bunch of writ petitions leading of which is Writ-A No.14575 of 2021; Shukla Sharma Versus State of U.P. and others (Supra). The relevant paragraph 12 of which is extracted below:-
"12. Considering the fact that the State Government by the aforesaid Government Order dated 06.10.1990 provided for a deeming clause of acceptance of option of retirement at the age of 58 years from all the teachers, who did not exercised an option, there does not appears to be any fault on the part of the deceased husband of the petitioner. No Government Order, amendment in instructions or rules have been brought on record which restores the position prevailing prior to the Government Order dated 06.10.1990. Therefore, it is clear that even the teachers who did not exercised their option to retire at the age of 58 years would not be deprived of benefit of gratuity only because the deceased did not exercised the option of retirement at the age of 58 years. Further reason is that it was open for the deceased to change his option as per subsequently issued government order a year before the date of superannuation but his/her untimely death robbed him/her of the opportunity. "
In view of the above, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of 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 him. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option under the relevant Government Order.
The petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.
.
...........................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.
Order Date :- 10.11.2022
Banswar
