Allowed

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022/3724/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bank trial court allowed a writ petition seeking payment of gratuity for the petitioner's deceased husband. Relying on precedent, the court quashed the rejection and directed a fresh consideration of the claim without regard to the non-exercise of the retirement option.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive gratuity; respondent to re-examine the claim within four weeks without rejecting it due to non-exercise of retirement option.

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3724 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar, Rajiv Singh Chuahan

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Shri Rajiv Singh Chuahan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

¶6

Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Sant Kumar had joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 22.11.1999 and he had died on 23.02.2020. The petitioner applied for payment of gratuity after death of her husband but no action was taken on her representations. It is stated that the authorities orally informed the petitioner that her husband Late Sant Kumar had not exercised his option for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years and, therefore, she is not entitled for payment of gratuity.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Anoop Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018 ADJ 63 wherein after relying upon various earlier decisions, this Court held that for rejection of the petitioner's claim of payment of gratuity on the ground that the employee had not exercised his option, is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the order of rejection was quashed and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity afresh, which shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner's wife had not exercised her option. The aforesaid decisions has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 02.06.2022 passed in Writ A No. 3410 of 2022.

¶8

Accordingly, keeping in view the proposition of law laid down as in the aforesaid case, the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶9

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment

¶10

of gratuity within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and it is provided that while considering the merit of the claim, it shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised his option for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years.

¶11

However, there shall no order as to costs.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.6.2022 Jaswant

¶13

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.06.09 20:55:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 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

Dileep Kumar Vs U.P. State Electricity Board Lko. Thru. Its Chairman Shankti Bhawan Lko. and 3 Others

Prithvi Raj @ Pirthi Raj Vs Jai Singh and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. through Adiitional Chief Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag and Others

Mrityunjai Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Namami Gange Evam Gramin Jalapurti ANUBHAG-4 and 2 Others

Const. No. 927040082 Shailendra Pratap Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Others

Shiv Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and 2 Others