Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4111 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prasad Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey (A.O.R. No.A/S 0405/2012) holding brief of Sri R.P. Verma for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent no.1 and Sri A.K. Yadav for Respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The case of the petitioner is that his wife namely Late Manju Bhardwaj was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Shahpur Afga 1st, Block- Siyar, Ballia on 5.3.2010. According to the writ petitioner, the date of birth of the wife of the writ petitioner was 01.01.1981 and she died on 19.11.2021. Despite the fact that all the terminal benefits had been paid, but the death-cum-retirement gratuity has not bee paid, which occasioned the writ petitioner to file Writ Petition No.15455 of 2022, Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. and others, which came to be disposed off on 27.09.2022 with a direction to the second respondent / District Basic Education Officer, Mau to decide the representation dated 07.07.2022 of the writ petitioner, which was stated to be pending in view of the law laid down by this Court in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019, Usha Rani vs. State of U.P., decided on 7.11.2019. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the fact that there was a categorical direction to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of death-cum-retirement gratuity, but the same had been negated by virtue of the order dated 18.11.2022 of the second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the finding so recorded in the order impugned is erroneous for denying compassionate appointment, that the deceased died prior to attainment the age of superannuation died and thus she cannot be granted gratuity. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in the case of Usha Rani (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 03.02.2023, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner applies squarely in the facts of the case.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Yadav who appears for Respondents 2 and 3 on the instructions states that they do not propose to file counter affidavit, however, according to them, the writ petition be allowed setting aside the order of second respondent dated 18.11.2022 remanding the matter back to second respondent to decide the same in light of judgment of Usha Rani (supra) as well as Government Order dated 03.02.2023, which has been issued by the State Government in its own wisdom post issuance of the order dated 18.11.2022.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record as well as a specific statement made by Sri Yadav that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit, the present petition is being decided in absence of any response from the respondents.
Parties are not in dispute that the wife of the writ petitioner was posted as Assistant Teacher since 05.03.2010 and she expired on 19.11.2021. It is also not disputed that in the earlier round of litigation, a specific direction has been issued to second respondent in the case of Sanjay Bhardwaj (supra) on 27.09.2022 requiring the second respondent to decide the claim of the writ petitioner as espoused in the representation dated 07.07.2022 in light of the judgment of Usha Rani (supra). Parties also do not dispute that the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) is still intact and further the State Government after following the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) has also issued a government order dated 03.02.2023, which is occupying the field and the present controversy is governed by the same.
Sri Yadav has further submitted that the reasons accorded in the order impugned is not correct in view of the law laid down in the case of Usha Rani (supra) as well as the Government Order dated 03.02.2023.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the second respondents stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, particularly in view of the mandate in the case of Usha Rani (supra) as well as the government order dated 03.02.2023, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The second respondent before proceeding to decide the claim of the writ petitioner shall also look into the entitlement of the writ petitioner and competing claim, if any.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
N.S.Rathour
