Allowed

Smt. Anita Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2022WRIA/6071/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition allowed the claim for gratuity for a deceased serving Headmaster. The Court quashed the departmental order rejecting the claim due to lack of retirement option exercise. Petitioners were directed to compute and release the amount with interest. The decision relies on precedents establishing entitlement despite non-option for retirement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 and directed Respondents to compute and release gratuity with 8% per annum interest within three months.

Smt. Anita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6071 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Chandra Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-1 and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for following reliefs:

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the effect and operation of the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Finance and Account Officer (Basic Education) Deoria.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents/authority concerned specially the respondent No. 3 to provide the gratuity to the petitioner, in terms of the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, in accordance with law, within some stipulated time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. "

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, was working on the post of Headmaster in Composite School Narayanpur. Subsequently, he died on 10.04.2021 while serving.

¶10

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he filed a representation claiming the gratuity of her husband, which was rejected by the impugned order only on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had not exercised the option for retirement at the age of 60 years.

¶11

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 .

¶12

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 06.01.2022 passed by the respondent no.3, Finance and Account Officer (Basic Education) Deoria is hereby quashed.

¶13

The District Basic Education Officer, District- Deoria and the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education, Deoria i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to compute the amount payable to the husband 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 application till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.4.2022

¶15

Noman

¶16

Digitally signed by NOMAN AHMAD Date: 2022.04.26 15:48:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Anita Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Yogendra Nath Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anju Rathore Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devrashi Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Chandra Bahan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others