Allahabad High Court
Smt. Bala Devi vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17095 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Bala Devi
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashwat Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Shashwat Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.2.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the respondent authorities refused to pay the amount of gratuity to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Higher Primary School, Kanhahedi died on 25.4.2009. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after completing all requisite formalities for release of death cum retirement benefits, the petitioner moved an application on prescribed proforma before the Respondent No. 2 . The Respondent No. 2 rejected the same vide order dated 12.2.2021 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not submitted the option to retire at the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of filing of this writ petition would be served, if petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation before the Respondent No. 2 and in turn the the Respondent No. 2 may be directed to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents submits that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending as the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.
Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the judgments passed in the above writ petitions, the impugned order dated 12.2.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh comprehensive representation clearly setting forth his claim within a period of 10 days from today before the respondent No. 2.
In the eventuality of such representation being filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2, it is directed that the respondent No. 2 shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all aspects of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders.
Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that deceased has not filled "Option Form".
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Ravi Prakash
