Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1731 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shanti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Quazi Mohammad Akaram
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Q.M. Akaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondent no.1 and 2 and Sri Arun Kumar, who appears for Respondent no.3.
Grievance of the writ petitioner is that her husband, namely, Late Bhai Lal, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 02.10.1970, died in harness on 28.04.2001. According to the writ petitioner, death-cum-retirement gratuity has not been paid till date. The writ petitioner further asserts that he has continuously been approaching the respondents but the same is in vain.
Prayer in the present petition is for the direction to the respondents to compute and pay gratuity to the writ petitioner along with 12% interest. An additional prayer has also been made for a direction for deciding the representation dated 04.11.2022, which is at page 24 of the paper-book. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that gratuity is not being paid on the pretext that option has not been exercised by the deceased, either to retire at 60 (earlier 58).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Government Order dated 03.02.2023, according to which the claim of the writ petitioner ought to have been allowed instead of driving him here and there.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Respondent no. 3, on the other hand, has argued that the writ petitioner is not entitled to be granted any benefits of judgment and order dated 7.11.2009 passed in Writ A No.17399 of 2019, Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others, as the same is not applicable and further the Government Order will not come to rescue the writ petitioner and there is enormous delay in raising claim for the benefits of death-cum-retirement gratuity, as it is time barred. However, according to them, the writ petition may be disposed off with a direction to the third respondent / District Basic Education Officer, District Prayagraj to consider the representation of the writ petitioner dated 4.11.2022, which is stated to be pending.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 11.1.2022 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 768 of 2021 so as to contend that in the matter of payment of gratuity, the question of limitation does not come in way.
I have considered submissions of the parties and perused the records. I find that the writ petitioner has already preferred a representation dated 04.11.2022 before the third respondent/ Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj and the same, according to the petitioner, is pending and there is a prayer also for disposal of the same, so the third respondent shall decide the same, if not already decided, within a period of one month, from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The writ petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation, if she so chooses, annexing the copy of the Government Order and the legal proposition which she relies upon.
This Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same will be considered and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed subject to any legal impediment.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Needless to point out that this court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
N.S.Rathour
