Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vijay Lakshmi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2726 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Vijay Lakshmi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Jain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The gratuity amount has come to be paid to the petitioner as per instructions, which was to be verified by learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rahul Jain.
Today compliance affidavit has also been filed, in which vide paragraph 10, it has been stated that the entire amount of the gratuity has come to be paid on 20th March, 2023 by transferring the same to the account of the present petitioner alongwith interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interest ought to have been calculated from the date when the amounts were issued. It is a case where gratuity before it could be opted for, the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2016 and amount would have been paid. He submits that this Court had directed for payment of interest upon amount to be paid to the petitioner and submits therefore that interest ought to have been calculated from the date, amount had become due i.e. date of death of the husband of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarvesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others, 2019 (7) ADJ 357, wherein interest at simple rate was directed to be paid upon gratuity amount to which the petitioner in that case was held entitled. He submits that in Smt. Sarvesh Kumari's case (supra), there was no such direction that the interest shall be paid from the date of application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the judgment in the case of Smt. Sarvesh Kumari (supra) was passed on 14.05.2019 and petitioner's case was covered and so she ought to have been given benefit by the State Government itself without compelling her to take recourse to litigation. She is a widow lady and she has been forced to this unnecessary litigation.
Learned Standing Counsel though submitted that interest has been paid but could not explain as to under what circumstances interest has been paid only since the date of application. He could not dispute that law laid down in the case of Smt. Sarvesh Kumari (supra) has been reiterated time and again and followed in subsequent judgments also.
I find initially this Court took notice and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to file his personal affidavit following the judgment passed in in Civil Appeal No. 3639 of 2023 arising out of judgment of the Court. In the personal affidavit filed before the Court, statement was made that the gratuity amount has been released in favour of the petitioner on 13th March, 2023.
It is settled legal position that the judgment of a particular issue passed by the Court and the law laid down therein is always taken to be a law in existence unless it is made prospective in its operation. Once this Court held that such employees /teachers are entitled to gratuity, the State ought to have acted promptly in sorting out such cases and ought to have accorded benefits even while noticiing the fact that option was made open in 2016 to be exercised. Thus, interest ought to have been calculated since 2016.
In the circumstances, therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with direction to the State respondents particularly District Inspector of Schools to pay further interest also between the year 2016 and the date of application from which the interest has already been counted and at the same rate of interest with which payment has been made. Necessary calculation shall be made within one month and payment shall be made accordingly. If any such requirement of budget as requested for it is expected that the State Government will do the needful within a period of three weeks of the demand raised by the concerned authority.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
Sanjeev
