Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Taramani Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 6336 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6336 ALL
Judgement Date : 28 February, 2023

Allahabad High Court
Taramani Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Prakash Padia



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2912 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Taramani Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur vide its letter dated 30.09.2022 which was provided to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, in the aforesaid order which reads as fallows:-

????????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? 25.08.2022 ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????????-2005 ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????????? ? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??-

???? ????????????? ?????? 60 ?????? ????????????? ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? 26 ??, 2009 ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the aforesaid Government Order dated 26.05.2009 is not applicable so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned a specific view of law laid down by this Court in the cases of Writ-A No. 7416 of 2019 Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others reported in 2019 (7) ADJ 357, Writ-A No. 14397 of 2019 Renu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 24.10.2019 and Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 07.11.2019. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 27.01.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 1047 of 2023 (Sudha Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Education (Secondary Education) Basti and 3 others, judgment reads as fallows:-

"Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being paid the gratuity amount of her husband as well as consequential mandamus commanding the Deputy Director to release the amount of gratuity along with admissible interest to the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner Late Uday Bhan Singh was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Ram Asrey Singh Inter College Samiti, Gaur, Basti on 09.07.1973. The service book of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the service book shows that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 01.07.1952.

It has been stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner died on 12.03.2010 at the age of 58 years while still in service.

The petitioner filed an application for releasing the gratuity amount of her husband but the said application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 on the ground that before his death the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.

The contents of the order dated 14.09.2022 indicates that the fact regarding the employment of the husband of the petitioner in the institution is admitted in the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. The date of birth of the husband of the petitioner as recorded in the service book shows that if he had not died while still in service, the husband of the petitioner would have retired at the age of 60 years in 2012. Evidently, the husband of the petitioner died before the last date for submitting his option for retirement at the age of 60 years.

The controversy involved in the present writ petition has been fully decided by this Court in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others) and the judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 14397 of 2019 as well as the judgement and order dated 14.5.2019 passed in Writ A No.7416 of 2019 (Smt.Sarvesh Kumari versus State of U.P and others). In view of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the gratuity amount due to her husband.

The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Basti Region, District Basti i.e., respondent no. 1 is directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity of her husband within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application for gratuity till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years and if otherwise eligible.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed."

It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that on the basis of judgment delivered in the case of Usha Rani (Supra) and Smt. Sarvesh Kumari (Supra) various orders were passed by this Court from time to time.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Since the controversy involved in the present case is identical to the various cases decided by this Court from time to time, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Varanasi Region Varanasi i.e., respondent no. 3 to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity of her husband within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application for gratuity till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years and if otherwise eligible.

Order Date :- 28.2.2023

Vikram

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter