Allahabad High Court
Saroj Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1555 of 2023
Petitioner :- Saroj Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. Shivan Yadav, accepting notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
The case of the writ petitioner is that her husband namely Maya Prakash Vats (since deceased) was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 26.02.1991/05.03.1991. However, he died in harness on 10.01.2009 while working as headmaster in Primary School, Kalina No.-1, Block Rohta, District Meerut.
Armed with a succession certificate the petitioner raised her claim for the grant of pensionary benefits including death-cum-retirement gratuity. In paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition, it has been averred that all the pensionary benefits have been granted except death-cum-retirement gratuity. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition, so as to further contend that the petitioner has been earlier apprised that the basic reason attributable for not being paid the death-cum-retirement gratuity, is that the deceased had not been submitted an option to retire at the age of 60 years.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court towards the judgment in the case of Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 07.11.2019, Writ-A No. 8501 of 2022 (Harsh Gangwar v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 04.07.2022 as well as Writ-A No. 11780 of 2022 (Jankibai v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22.08.2022, so as to further contend that now the said objection is not available with the respondents as mandated in the said judgment.
Per contra learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel who appears for respondent nos. 3 and 4 have argued that there is no dispute to the legal proposition as propounded in Usha Rani (supra) case, however, the case of the writ petitioner can very well be considered and addressed by the third respondent, District Basic Education Officer, District Meerut. In case the petitioner files her comprehensive representation raising her grievance in that regard.
Considering the categorical submissions of the rival parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appropriate representation along with necessary documents appended thereto and in case the same is submitted before the third respondent, then the third respondent shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. After determining the entitlement of petitioner and competing claim, it is further clarified that in case the third respondent finds that there is any deficiency in the documents then he shall require the petitioner to furnish the same subject to aforesaid observation the present writ petition is disposed of.
Needless to point out, that this Court has not gone into other aspects of the matter.
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 :- 7.2.2023
Prashant
