Dismissed

Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022SPLA/42/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Alpha Court bench dismissed an intra-court appeal by an appellant husband victim of a murder, who claimed interest on gratuity from 1999 instead of 2020. The court held that since the delay was attributable to the appellant's negligence in prosecuting her claim, interest was not payable from the due date but only from the first application date.

What did the court decide?

The intra-court appeal was dismissed with no interest awarded from 1999.

Kalawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Chief Justice's Court Serial No.5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶4

¶5

SPECIAL APPEAL No. -42 of 2022 (Arising out of Writ A No.16541 of 2021)

¶6

Smt. Kalawati Devi ..Appellant

¶7

Through :- Mr. Gopalji Rai, Advocate for Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶8

v/s

¶9

State of U.P. and others …Respondents

¶10

Through:Mr. Rama Nand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4

¶11

Coram: HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶14

The present intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the judgment and order dated March 12, 2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 16541 of 2021 (Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others).

¶15

The appellant/petitioner has filed the above mentioned writ petition challenging the order dated October 01, 2021 passed by the respondent no. 2, Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, by which the interest on the gratuity has been awarded to the appellant/petitioner from 27.10.2020 and not for any earlier date. A further prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus has been prayed commanding the respondent no. 2 to pay interest on payment of gratuity Since 1999.

¶16

¶17

The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the husband of the appellant/petitioner, namely Dev Nath Singh, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Ratsar Inter College, Ratsar, Ballia, was murdered on May 05, 1999, during his service, as Assistant Teacher.

¶18

The appellant/petitioner moved an application on October 27, 2020 before the respondent no. 2 through registered post asking for payment of gratuity payable to her on death of her husband. On the said application, the respondent no. 2 passed an order dated November 11, 2020 denying the payment of gratuity to the appellant/petitioner on the ground that Dev Nath Singh (husband of appellant/petitioner) has submitted option form on December 15, 1990 opting for retirement at the age of 60 years (now 62 years), as such, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity.

¶19

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated November 11, 2020, the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-A No. 2787 of 2021 (Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others), which was finally disposed off by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment and order dated February 18, 2021. The writ petition was allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated December 12, 2019 passed in Writ-A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others) . A further direction was issued to the respondent no. 2 to decide the matter afresh in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order dated December 12, 2019.

¶20

The respondent no. 2 in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No. 2787 of 2021, decided the claim of the appellant/ petitioner for payment of gratuity by an order dated October 01, 2021 and also hold that the appellant/petitioner has moved first application for payment of gratuity on October 27, 2020, as such, she is not entitled for payment of interest on amount of gratuity from any earlier date other then the date of submission of her claim, i.e., October 27, 2020 and accordingly, the respondent no. 2 has ordered for payment of interest of the gratuity w.e.f. October 27, 2020 till the date of actual is made @ 8% per annum.

¶21

¶22

The appellant/petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated October 01, 2021, in so far as it denied the payment of interest from the year 1999 till the actual payment is made to the appellant/petitioner.

¶23

The learned Single Judge of this Court, by impugned judgment and order dated December 03, 2021 has declining to award interest from the year 1999 and has directed the respondents to pay the interest of Rs. 11,410/-, i.e., the interest from October 27, 2020 within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order before the authority concerned.

¶24

Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated December 03, 2021 it is argued by the counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the amount of gratuity was payable to the appellant/petitioner from the year 1999, as the gratuity became due for payment on the date of death of her husband. It is further argued that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the effect that who was negligent in prosecuting the claim for payment of gratuity cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India are perverse.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

¶26

From perusal of the record, it is clear that the appellant/petitioner has submitted application for payment of gratuity on October 27, 2020. The said application was rejected by the respondent no. 2, by an order dated November 11, 2020. In the application dated October 27, 2020, although it is stated that the appellant/petitioner is running from pillar to post for last about 20 years for payment of gratuity and group insurance but there had been no reference of any earlier representation or application moved by the appellant/petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh or any other competent authority for payment of gratuity. The application filed by the appellant/petitioner was rejected

¶27

¶28

within most reasonable time by the respondent no. 2 by an order dated October 11, 2020. The said order denying the claim of the appellant/petitioner for payment of gratuity dated November 11, 2020 was set aside by this Court, by order dated February 18, 2021 and the appellant/petitioner was held entitled for payment of gratuity, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Usha Rani (supra) . In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated February 18, 2021 passed by this Court, the respondent no. 2 has passed an order dated October 01, 2021 for payment of gratuity as well as payment of interest from the date on which the claim for payment of gratuity was made.

¶29

That no paper or document or record has been submitted by the appellant/petitioner even before the Writ Court to establish that she had been claiming gratuity from the year 1999. The findings recorded by the respondent no. 2 in the order dated October 01, 2021 that the claim of gratuity was made first time by the application dated October 27, 2020 has also not been challenged by adducing any documents.

¶30

It is further stated that the husband of the petitioner namely Dev Nath Singh has opted for retirement at the age of 60 years (now 62 years) by his option dated December 15, 1999 and accordingly it was decided by the respondent no. 2 that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity. However, in the light of the judgment of this Court in case of Usha Rani (supra) , the appellant/petitioner became entitled for payment of gratuity, despite the fact that her husband has opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.

¶31

It is also clear from the averments made in the writ petition that infact the appellant/petitioner became entitled for payment of gratuity in the light of the judgment of this Court in case of Usha Rani (supra) . The appellant/petitioner has submitted her application for payment of gratuity on October 27, 2020 which is based on the judgment of Usha Rani, as such, the respondent no. 2 is justified in holding that the

¶32

¶33

appellant/petitioner is entitled for payment of interest from the date of her first application i.e. October 27, 2020 and not from any earlier date.

¶34

This Court in Writ-A No.14397 of 2019, decided on October 24, 2019 (Renu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others) has also held that the interest at the rate of 8% per annum is payable from the date of submission of application for payment of gratuity till the actual payment is made.

¶35

From perusal of the record it is also clear that the appellant/petitioner has submitted her application dated October 27, 2020 for payment of gratuity. Prior to this application, no other application was moved by the appellant/petitioner before the authorities for payment of gratuity. Thus, it is clear that only after the judgment of Usha Rani (supra) , dated December 12, 2019 the appellant/petitioner submitted her application for payment of gratuity. Thus, the respondent no. 2 is fully justified in awarding interest @ 8% per annum from the date of her first application, claiming gratuity.

¶36

In so far as the judgment cited by the petitioner in Special Appeal (D) No. 430 of 2016 (Smt. Nazma Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. and others) dated 11.7.2016 is concerned, the Court has held that the interest is payable from the date, the amount became payable and the authorities had been negligent in making the payment of due amount. In the present case, the appellant/petitioner became entitled for payment of gratuity in the light of Usha Rani (supra) and based on the said judgment, first application dated October 27, 2020 was made, as such, the respondent no. 2 is justified in awarding interest from October 27, 2020.

¶37

In so far as the judgment cited by the appellant/petitioner in case of Smt. Pratima Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2010(10) ADJ 331 is concerned, in the said case also, the Court was pleased to hold that the interest is payable only when the authority has been negligent in adjudicating the claim and making the payment. In the present case, the

¶38

¶39

claim for payment of gratuity itself was made on October 27, 2020, as such, the respondent no. 2 is justified in awarding interest from the date of the submission of application for payment of gratuity.

¶40

The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant/petitioner did not pursue her claim for about 21 years and not approached this Court for about 21 years are neither perverse nor contrary to law.

¶41

Since the appellant/petitioner herself had been negligent in prosecuting her claim, she is not entitled for payment of interest since 1999, as claimed in the writ petition.

¶42

Thus this intra court appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶43

(Prakash Padia) (Rajesh Bindal) Judge Chief Justice Allahabad February 03, 2022 Swati Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumarand Gupta and 20 Others Vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others

Indumati Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Dixit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lallu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vimal Kumar Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another

Shubendu Garg and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others