Allowed

Sumitra Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021WRIA/4037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought gratuity for her husband, an Assistant Teacher who died in harness before superannuation. The Hon'ble Court allowed the petition, relying on a suo cognito decision, and directed the respondents to pay the gratuity entitled to the husband within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay gratuity entitled to petitioner's husband within three months from date of filing along with certified copy of the order.

Sumitra Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4037 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sumitra Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

The present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay Gratuity to the petitioner, which remained unpaid.

¶5

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Andhua, Block Manth, District Mathura, however he died in harness on 09.01.2009 before reaching the age of 60 years of superannuation. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009, Clause 5, the petitioner is entitled to Gratuity. The contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that prior to the death of the husband of the petitioner, the option was not given for his retirement at the age of 60 years. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the admitted case is that the petitioner died in harness prior to the date of superannuation at the age of 60 years. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others) , wherein the entire scope of the Government Order was considered.

¶6

Considering the fact that the issue is no more alive in view of the specific decision of this Court in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 that the gratuity would be payable to the employees, who died while in service and following the same it is clear that the petitioner would be entitled for release of the gratuity payable in terms of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009.

¶7

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed following the judgment of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (Supra) . The petitioner shall be paid the gratuity to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application along with a copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court, which shall be treated as certified copy of this order.

¶8

Order Date :- 27.7.2021/S. Rahman

Sumitra Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Devi 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

Bhuvneshwar Dayal Tyagi Vs Union of India and Another

Pratibha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kanti Devi Vs Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and 2 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others