Allahabad High Court
Sarojani Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117124
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9358 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sarojani Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Pankaj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Durga Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents to sanction and release the amount of death cum-retirement gratuity of the husband of petitioner to the petitioner along with admissible interest forthwith."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband, namely, Brajesh Singh Yadav was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and took charge on 04.12.1999 and while working as Head Master in Primary School, Ghaghu, Block Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, he died on 17.08.2021 before his retirement. After his death, family pension and other dues have been paid to the petitioner except gratuity. The petitioner has moved a representation on dated 08.05.2023 for extension of gratuity in her favour which is still pending to be adjudicated by the competent authority.
4. For substantiating the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.17399 of 2019, decided on 07.11.2019).
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the Respondent No.3 to examine the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra).
6. Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case as well as if there is no other legal impediment, the respondent no.3 is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 08.05.2023 in light of the judgment in the case of Usha Rani (supra) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner's claim for extension of gratuity in her favour shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled up by the husband of the petitioner.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. After thorough scrutiny of the affidavit filed in support of the present petition which was sworn by the Pairokar under the capacity of family friend, it has been pointed out by Sri Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in so many petitions, the same person declared himself as Pairokar and family friend irrespective of different district and the same seems to be forged, fictitious and the same bears of impersonation attempted by the person who identified the petitioner being the Pairokar and sworn the affidavit.
10. On precise query as made before Sri M.Z. Nazam, Registrar (Civil B-2), it has been informed that there is specific orders for filing petition pertains to criminal case that only the blood relation shall be permitted to sworn the affidavit in support of any pleadings whatsoever has to be filed before this Court, sofar as filing the applications, petitions or any affidavit, there is no specific direction for specific person who is swearing the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner or the person who is filing the case before this Court at civil side and as such, the practice which has been noticed by this Court that in several petition, the affidavits sworn by person under the capacity of Pairokar being the family friend is one and the same. It has also been observed that the petitioner belongs to District Kanpur Dehat and the Pairokar who sworn the affidavit, belongs to District Banda, but at the same time by bare perusal of the affidavit, it is mentioned in the specific column of the address as R/o 1123, Atarra Road, Sadhu Thok, Baberu, District Kanpur Dehat and the same has been left to point out by the concerned person sitting at the place of reporting that Baberu is at District Banda not in District Kanpur Dehat.
11. The Registrar (Civil B-2) is hereby directed to place this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for seeking appropriate directions, if required to be received in shape of circular letter for permitting the person swearing the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner under the capacity of Pairokar may be defined properly which has already been defined at the criminal side that only the blood relation shall be permitted to swear the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner/applicant.
Order Date :- 25.5.2023
Vivek Kr.
