Petitioner sought gratuity for his wife who died in harness during employed status. Court directed payment following prior precedent establishing entitlement to deceased employees under Government Order 2017.
Petitioner to be paid gratuity within three months of order filing along with certified copy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8690 of 2021
Petitioner :- Isar Ahmad Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Asar Mukhtar,Ikram Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Agarwal, counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and the Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay gratuity to the petitioner, which remained unpaid.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher, however she died in harness on 19.6.2018 before reaching the age of superannuation. The age of wife of petitioner was 49 years in 2018. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the Government Order dated 23rd August, 2017, Clause 7(i), the petitioner is entitled to gratuity. The request of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12.1.2021 solely on the ground that prior to the death of the wife of the petitioner, the option was not given. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that even if the option given by the petitioner is not accepted, the admitted case is that the petitioner died in harness prior to the date of
superannuation. 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.
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 23rd August, 2017.
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 wife 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.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 vinay
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner is entitled to gratuity when the wife died in harness before superannuation without having previously exercised the option for payment.
Whether the decision in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 establishes entitlement to gratuity for employees who died while in service under the relevant Government Order.
Whether the petitioner is directed to be paid the gratuity to which his deceased wife was entitled.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and OthersFollowed¶7
Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Isar Ahmad Khan
State of U.P.
Another
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
