Allahabad High Court
Smt. Zakri Begum vs J. Ribha, Director Minority Welfare And ... on 17 May, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89596
Court No. - 51
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 9173 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Zakri Begum
Opposite Party :- J. Ribha, Director Minority Welfare And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. The writ Court on 10.05.2023 in Writ-A No. 8182 of 2023 passed the following order:-
"1. The petitioner claims gratuity benefit in respect of her husband who died-in-harness while working as headmaster in the Madarsa institution, namely, Darul Uloom Sarkar-E-Aasi, Sikandarpur, District Ballia.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that before the petitioner's husband could have opted for 60 years of age of retirement, he died, and therefore, his dependents are entitled to the gratuity benefit in terms of Government Order dated 14.12.2011, which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and that provides for payment of gratuity to those who opt for retirement at the age of 60 years in place of 62 years.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in the case of Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and 6 Others being Writ A No. 17399 of 2019 decided by this Court on 7.11.2019 in the matters of Assistant Teachers working in Junior High Basic School, who could not opt for the age of retirement so as to be entitled for gratuity, have been held to be entitled .
4. Sri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 submits that petitioner's claim can be directed to be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority in the matter.
5. In view of above, this petition stands disposed off with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to look into and consider the grievance of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in respect of husband of the petitioner, Kalimullah who died-in- harness in the light of provisions of law and also considering the judgment of this Court in Usha Rani (supra). Proper decision shall be taken by the competent authority within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Needless to add, the order to be passed shall be reasoned and speaking one."
2. From perusal of the order, it is clear that writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the grievance of applicant for payment of gratuity considering the judgment of co-ordinate Bench rendered in case of Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019, decided on 07.11.2019.
3. A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of State wherein it has been stated that representation has been decided on 29.01.2024 and family pension order has been generated in favour of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is also entitled for gratuity in view of judgment rendered in Usha Rani (supra) as the gratuity is payable to the teachers of Madarasa. He submits that provisions are pari materia and benefits should be extended to the teachers thereto also.
5. Learned Standing counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that the authorities after giving due consideration have arrived at a finding that the gratuity is being paid to the Assistant Teachers who were working in Junior High School pursuant to judgment rendered in case of Usha Rani (supra) and as per the Government Order dated 03.02.2023, there is no such policy for payment of gratuity in case of Madarasa as the new policy is under consideration and the husband of applicant having not exercised the option of retirement attaining the age of 60 years.
6. This Court after hearing both counsel for the parties finds that this is a disputed question of fact and writ Court had left it open to the authorities to decide the same which the authorities have done. This Court cannot delve into such disputed question of fact and adjudicate the matter on merits. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by opposite party, he has option of challenging the same before the appropriate forum.
7. Moreover, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of Usha Rani (supra) as in case of Usha Rani, teachers who were working in Junior High School, the Court had held that in case option was not exercised and the teacher died before attaining the age of 60 years, the gratuity was payable. However, no such adjudication has been done in case of teachers of Madarasa. The matter is left open for the applicant to adjudicate before the appropriate forum, if so advised.
8. In view of above, the contempt application stands dismissed.
9. Contempt notice stands discharged.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
V.S.Singh
