Bachcha Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

Bachcha Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 11.2.2022 of the District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda quashed; respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to compute the gratuity payable in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and release it within three months, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual disbursement, ignoring the non-exercise of the option for retirement at the age of 60 years.

Issue for consideration

Whether the gratuity of the petitioner's wife, an Assistant Teacher who died in service, could be rejected on the sole ground that she had not exercised the option for retirement at the age of 60 years.

Court's answer

The controversy involved in the writ petition stands covered by the principle of law laid down in Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others, Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others; the present writ petition is squarely covered by those judgments.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.2.2022 passed by the respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda, is quashed.

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda and Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Banda) are directed to compute the amount payable towards gratuity quantified in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and release the amount within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order is produced before them.ratio¶12
The gratuity amount is to be released along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajiv Joshi, J.) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Bachcha Raj Singh and quashed the order dated 11.2.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda, whereby the gratuity claim of the petitioner's wife — an Assistant Teacher in Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kulkumhari, Block Badokhar Khurd, District- Banda, who died in service on 23.4.2019 — had been rejected solely on the ground that she had not exercised the option for retirement at the age of 60 years. Holding the controversy squarely covered by Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others (Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2008 (10) ADJ 63, the Court directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda and Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Banda) to compute the gratuity in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and release it within three months, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till actual disbursement, ignoring the non-exercise of the retirement option.

Court No. - 36

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4288 of 2022

Petitioner :- Bachcha Raj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 to 3, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6 and perused the record.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.2.2022 passed by the respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda, whereby the claim of gratuity of petitioner's wife has been rejected.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner, was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kulkumhari, Block Badokhar Khurd, District- Banda. Subsequently, she died on 23.4.2019 while serving. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he filed a representation claiming the gratuity of his wife, which was rejected by the impugned order only on the ground that the wife of the petitioner had not exercised the option for retirement at the age of 60 years.

Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending as the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.

The present writ petition is squarely covered by the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgements.

The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 11.2.2022 passed by the respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda is hereby quashed.

The District Basic Education Officer, District- Banda and the

Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Banda, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to compute the amount payable to the father of the petitioner towards gratuity quantified in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and release the amount within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the wife of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.

Order Date :- 8.4.2022 Akbar

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AKBAR Date: 2022.04.12 15:48:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad