Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kusumlata Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1491 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Kusumlata Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anis Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Anis Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-1, 2 & 5.
Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass appropriate orders for granting the gratuity amount of (Late) Purendra Nath Singh alongwith interest as applicable in favour of petition."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was working as Headmaster in Primary School, Bhilihili, District Azamgarh. He died on 21.05.2013 before attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. It is next submitted that other benefits have been released but the amount of gratuity has not been released on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not exercised the option to retire at the age of 60 years. It is next submitted that the petitioner filed a representation in this regard on 09.12.2022 before the respondent no. 3, District Basic Education Officer, District Azamgarh, which has not been decided by the authority concerned till date.
It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of writ 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 which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 40 of 2021 (State of U.P. & 06 Ors. Vs. Usha Rani) decided on 28.1.2021 and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19089 of 2021 decided on 29.4.2022. Relevant portion of the Usha Rani's Case (supra) 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, Distruict 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. ............"
Learned Standing counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that claim of the petitioner can be examined by the authorities in terms of the above direction forthwith.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction upon respondent no. 3, District Basic Education Officer, District Azamgarh to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2022 in light of the judgment of Usha Rani (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the production of a 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 filled by petitioner's husband.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023
Noman
