Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5082 of 2023
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijai Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri Vijai Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Rampur by which petitioner's claim for gratuity has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's wife had not opted retirement at the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner while working as Assitant Teacher at the Upper Primary School Chaudharpur, Block Saidnagar, Districrict-Rampur, was died on 03.05.2022. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after completing all requisite formalities for release of death cum retirement benefits, the petitioner moved an application on prescribed proforma before the Block Education Officer and the same was duly forwarded to the competent authority. The Respondent No. 1 rejected the same vide order dated 11.01.2023 on the ground that the wife of the petitioner had not submitted the option to retire at the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of filing of this writ petition would be served, if petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation before the Respondent No. 1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur and in turn the the Respondent No. 1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur may be directed to pass appropriate orders thereon.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents submits that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending as the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.
Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the judgments passed in the above writ petitions, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur, is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh comprehensive representation clearly setting forth his claim within a period of 10 days from today before the respondent No.1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur.
In the eventuality of such representation being filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur, it is directed that the respondent No.1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all aspects of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the respondent No. 1, District Basic Education Officer, Rampur to pass appropriate orders.
Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that deceased has not filled "Option Form".
Order Date :- 24.3.2023
Deepak/
