Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021WRIA/4526/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased employee. The court held that gratuity must be paid despite the husband not exercising the retirement option, applying a prior judgment. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the Deputy Director of Education to release the gratuity within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued commanding respondent no.3 to release death-cum gratuity within two months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4526 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay the amount of death-cum gratuity alongwith reasonable interest so fix by this Hon'ble Court to the petitioner at earliest.

¶8

(b). Issue, any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to which the petitioner may found entitle in law.

¶9

(c). Allow this writ petition and award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶10

This Court on 22.06.2021 passed the following order:-

¶11

"Heard Shri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

¶12

The contention of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee, that she has been denied gratuity on the ground that her husband had not exercised option of retirement at the age of 58 years and, therefore, the amount of gratuity would not be payable to her. Learned counsel states that a similar matter has been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of a judgment dated 14.5.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 7416 of 2019, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure11 to the writ petition.

¶13

Learned Standing counsel shall seek instructions in the matter positively in ten days.

¶14

List this matter as fresh in the week commencing 12 July 2021."

¶15

This Court on 15.07.2021 passed the following order:-

¶16

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for time to obtain instructions and apprise the Court whether the decision rendered by the learned Judge in Sarvesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others [2019 7 ADJ 357] has been

¶17

accepted and implemented by the State.

¶18

Include in the list of fresh cases of 29 July 2021."

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions which is taken on record, states that since husband of the petitioner has not exercised the option of retirement, therefore, the payment of gratuity has been denied to the petitioner.

¶20

Since, it is come on instruction that the controversy in hand is covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2019 7 ADJ 357 which is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel, inasmuch as the sole ground for denying the payment of gratuity to the petitioner is that the option has not been exercised by the husband of the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is being issued commanding the respondent no.3-Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) First Region Saharanpur, District Saharanpur to release the death-cum gratuity in favour of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Sattyarth

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Vinay Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarjesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anand Kumar Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Brijesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chandra Bhushan Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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