Allahabad High Court
Ramanand Yadav vs Additional Director, Treasury ... on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17379 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramanand Yadav
Respondent :- Additional Director, Treasury And Pension (Basic Education) And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity consequent upon death of petitioner's wife along with interest.
Wife of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School, Kudahini, Block Badraon, District Mau. She died in harness on 03.07.2018. Grievance of the petitioner is that though other retiral benefits have been paid but the amount of gratuity has not been released.
It appears that the amount of Gratuity has not been paid on the ground that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the deceased employee.
Controversy in that regard has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of petitions. Reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinafter:-
"............
Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied.
Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.
From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue.
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 30.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 7- Block Education Officer Block Kadarchauk, District Badaun is hereby quashed.
Respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ............"
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation ventilating her grievance to the respondent No. 2 and in turn the respondent No. 2 may be directed to pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of judgement passed in the case of Usha Rani (Supra).
Learned counsels, representing the respondents, have no objection to the aforesaid proposition but submit that the representation may be directed to be decided in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation, ventilating his grievance and clearly setting forth his claim before the respondent No. 2 within a period of ten days from today.
In the eventuality of such a representation being filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2, District Basic Education Officer, Mau, is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgement in the case of Usha Rani (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.
Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the husband of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 31.10.2022/Arti
