Disposed

Smt. Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2022WRIA/5282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition regarding unissued gratuity. Held that entitlement cannot be denied due to failure to submit retirement option form when death occurred before superannuation. Authorized authorities to compute and release gratuity within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to decide representation and release gratuity computation within three months.

Smt. Saroj Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5282 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Saroj Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Gorakhpur (Respondent no.4) to release Death cum Retirement Gratuity in favour of Petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

II. Issue a writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District, Gorkahpur (Respondent no.4) to decide the representation dated 22.10.2021 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure no 18 to the writ petition) within a specific period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶9

Petitioner's husband was working as Head Master in Primary School Hata-I, Block Gagha, District- Gorakhpur. He died on 08.01.2013. 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 husband alongwith interest.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 judgment 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:-

¶12

"............

¶13

Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor 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.

¶14

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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. ............"

¶20

Learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that claim of the petitioner can be examined by the authorities in terms of the above direction forthwith.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 4, Basic Siksha Adhikari, District, Gorakhpur to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2021 in light of the judgment of Usha Rani (Supra) in accordance with law within a period of three months from the production of a certified copy of this order. All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 11.4.2022 Noman

¶24

Digitally signed by NOMAN AHMAD Date: 2022.04.13 10:48:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Saroj Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saroj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Singh Sengar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neetu Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bachcha Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Bindu Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Arora Vs State of U P and 4 Others