Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018SPLA/653/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal rejected the appellants' claim for gratuity payable to the deceased wife of the appellant who died as an Assistant Teacher before exercising her option for early retirement. The Court dismissed the appeal upholding the lower court's rejection.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal is dismissed. The claim for payment of gratuity is rejected.

Vijay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 653 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Saxena & 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

The claim of the appellants in the writ petition for payment of gratuity has been rejected by a learned Judge of this Court but in regard to the claim for payment of Group Insurance amount, a direction has been issued to the District Inspector of Schools to examine the same and make payment at an early date.

¶6

It transpires that late Km. Aneeta Saxena died on 9 January 2016 while working as an Assistant Teacher in the primary section of Ishwar Sharan Girls Inter College, Allahabad. She had been appointed on 1 July 1992. In terms of a Government Order, option was required to be exercised by Km. Saxena as to whether she would opt to retire at the age of 60 years, in which case gratuity would be payable, or at the age of 62 years in which case gratuity would not be paid. It is an admitted case that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by Km. Aneeta Saxena. On her death, her three brothers and one cousin made a claim for payment of gratuity. As option had not been exercised by late Km. Saxena for retirement at the age of 60 years, the learned Judge rejected this claim.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that option could have been exercised by late Km. Saxena one

¶8

year before retirement and since she died before retirement, the appellants can insist for payment of gratuity.

¶9

We find it difficult to accept this submission. As noted above, late Km. Saxena had not exercised the option to retire at the age of 60 years. Gratuity was, therefore, not required to be paid to her. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot claim payment of gratuity.

¶10

The impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for interference by this Court.

¶11

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.4.2018 GS

¶13

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶14

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Vijay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Saxena and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindi Dainik Tarun Mitra Newspaper Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Sohan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Rambha Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

satendra kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

hansraj tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Tarun Chetana Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others