Partly allowed

Smt. Lalita Pandey v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022WRIA/16442/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a writ petition seeking death gratuity and salary payment for a school teacher who died in harness. The court ruled the gratuity claim is covered by a recent Single Judge decision. Regarding the salary claim, the order was remanded to the District Inspector of Schools for a fresh order after considering objections to an alleged unauthorized absence report.

What did the court decide?

Death gratuity claim allowed; claim for salary payment remitted to District Inspector of Schools for fresh order.

Smt. Lalita Pandey Vs State of U P and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16442 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Lalita Pandey Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 16.12.2021 whereby the petitioner's claim for death gratuity as also salary payment for the period 01.8.2019 to 15.3.2020 has been rejected.

¶7

Petitioner's husband (since deceased) Vinod Kumar Pandey was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 10.4.1986. Undisputedly, he died in harness on 15/16.3.2020 at the age of about 57 years while serving at Akhand Inter College, Kabrai, Mahoba. The petitioner who is the wife of the said deceased teacher claims entitlement to payment of gratuity. In that regard, petitioner relies on a recent decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ - A No. 8605 of 2022 and other connected matters, decided on 04.08.2022.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge referred to above. However, he objects that the claim for payment of gratuity has been made with a delay.

¶9

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ - A No. 8605 of 2022 and other connected matters, insofar as the claim for payment of death gratuity is concerned.

¶10

Insofar as the other claim is concerned, it transpires, the DIOS has not applied his mind to the facts and has merely recorded his conclusion.

¶11

Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2021 is set aside to that extent. The matter with respect to salary payment for the period 01.8.2019 to 15.3.2020 is remitted to the DIOS to pass fresh order after allowing the petitioner to object to the report of the Principal with respect to the alleged unauthorised absence of the deceased employee Vinod Kumar Pandey, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three moths from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.10.2022 Faraz

¶13

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.10.14 09:50:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Lalita Pandey v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kaushalya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Hasan Mujtba Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Deepak Singh Rajpoot Vs Chandrashekhar Azad Agriculture and 4 Others

Deepak Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others