Smt. Rajwati vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4006 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1977 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Rajwati
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chandra Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri. Satish Chandra Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

Grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the fact that the husband of the petitioner late Raj Pal Singh who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School, Pavsara, Block- Rajpura, District Sambhal, since 15.02.1993 and died in harness on 24.07.2015, except death cum retirement gratuity other terminal benefits were paid.

It has been further argued that the only ground on the basis whereof the death cum retirement gratuity is not being paid is this, that the deceased did not exercise his option to be retired at the age of 60 years (earlier 58 years). Reliance has been placed upon the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 ( Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and others), so as to further contend that now the said ground is not available to the respondents.

Learned Standing Counsel as well as the Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 on the other hand have argued that now a Government Order has been issued on 03.02.2023 whereby insistence on exercise of option for the payment of death cum retirement gratuity is no more in existence. It has been further argued that the writ petitioner may be directed to prefer an appropriate representation before the fourth respondent, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Sambhal, who shall redress the grievance of the writ petitioner.

The Counsel for the respondents have further made a statement at the Bar that they do not propose to file any response. Considering the categorical submissions of the rival parties, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be solved in detaining the writ petitioner on board, however, the present writ petition is being disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a representation before the fourth respondent, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Sambhal, in case such a representation if preferred then the fourth respondent shall address the same in accordance with law in the light of the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra).

It is further clarified that before taking the decision, the fourth respondent shall also make an endeavour to determine the entitlement of the writ petitioner an any competing claims set up by others, if any.

Needless to point out that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

Prashant