Quashed

Naimuddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2021WRIA/3596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking payment of death cum retirement gratuity. Relying on precedents differing the view that premature death bars gratuity based on unexercised retirement options, the court quashed the denial order and directed payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order denying gratuity; directed respondents to compute and release the gratuity amount payable to the deceased employee's wife along with 8% interest per annum within two months.

Naimuddin Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3596 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Naimuddin Siddiqui Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, 5 and 6.

¶6

The controversy raised in this petition stands adjudicated by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.4055 of 2021. Order dated 14.06.2021 is extracted hereinafter:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent Board and learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.

¶8

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death cum retirement gratuity consequent upon death of petitioner's wife alongwith interest.

¶9

It appears that all other retiral benefits have been paid to petitioner but the amount of gratuity has not been paid on the ground that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the deceased employee.

¶10

Controversy in that regard has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of petitions. Reference can be had to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinafter:-

¶11

".........…

¶12

Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied.

¶13

Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶14

"Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.

¶15

From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue.

¶16

Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶17

Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 30.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 7- Block Education Officer Block Kadarchauk, Distruict Badaun is hereby quashed.

¶18

Respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ............"

¶19

Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that claim of petitioner can be examined by the authorities in terms of the above direction forthwith.

¶20

Since similar controversy has already been adjudicated in previous matters, this petition is disposed of on same terms. It is provided that respondents shall calculate and release the amount of gratuity due and payable to deceased employee to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of present of a copy of this order before this authority concerned, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum."

¶21

For the reasons recorded therein, the present writ petition is also disposed of on same terms.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.8.2021

¶23

P. Sri.

Naimuddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naimuddin Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharif Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anshul Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Daya Shankar Mishra Vs State of U.P and Others

Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyabhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others