Allowed

Sri Ram Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022WRIA/4808/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to release death gratuity for his wife, a deceased employee. Court relied on precedents holding that denying gratuity merely for lack of an early retirement option when death occurred before superannuation is invalid. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondent directed to decide petitioner's representation within three months in light of judgment in Usha Rani.

Sri Ram Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4808 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sri Ram Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P. K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to release the Gratuity/death gratuity amount as soon as possible in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest."

¶8

Petitioner's wife was working as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Bharauli, Azamgarh and thereafter she was promoted in Junior High School, Primary School, Makhnath Shiksha Kshetra, Koalosa, Uchchtar Primary School, Azamgarh, sh e died on 28.03.2020. Grievance is that though other benefits have been released but the amount of gratuity has not been released. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the amount of death cum retirement gratuity consequent upon death of petitioner's wife alongwith interest.

¶9

It appears that the amount of gratuity has not been paid on the ground that option to retire at the age of 60 years was not exercised by the deceased employee.

¶10

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in the present case has already been adjudicated by this Court in number of writ petitions. Reference can be had to the judgement of this Court in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others) , decided on 7.11.2019. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinafter:- "............

¶11

Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor

¶12

Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied.

¶13

Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground.

¶14

Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted below:-

¶15

"Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records.

¶16

From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue.

¶17

Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law

¶18

and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶19

Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 30.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 7- Block Education Officer Block Kadarchauk, Distruict Badaun is hereby quashed.

¶20

Respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ............"

¶21

It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has represented the matter in this regard before the respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh on 03.12.2021 but nothing has been done till now.

¶22

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand submits that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no .5 to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgement in the case of Usha Rani (supra) within stipulated period.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction upon respondent no.5, District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.12.2021 in light of judgement in the case of Usha Rani (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.

¶24

Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the petitioner's wife.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 AKT

¶26

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.12 11:55:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Ram Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Prajapati 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushlendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. through Secretary

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sakshi Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priy Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Sri Radhakirshna Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others