Allowed

Yash Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023/1080/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a gratuity claim cannot be rejected solely because the employee did not exercise an option to retire before death. It directed respondents to consider the claim while adhering to legal precedents regarding unforeseen circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to consider the petitioner's gratuity claim and pass a reasoned order within six weeks without rejecting it on the ground of unexercised option.

Yash Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1080 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Yash Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Pathak,Jyotindra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the State and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity in terms of the rules which is not being paid only on the ground that no option was exercised prior to death of the employee.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondents admits the fact that the G.O. dated 23.11.1994 relating to payment of gratuity to teachers of basic schools is referable to Section 13 of Basic Education Act, 1972 which has been promulgated subsequent to the Rules of 1964 and is more beneficial. As regards the requirement of option in the said Government Order the counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgement in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in 2008(10) ADJ 63 wherein it has been held that if death of a person is on account of unforeseen circumstances which could not be predicted, it cannot be presumed that the employee would have chosen to retire at particular age much prior in time than the contingency of achieving the age of retirement, therefore, the requirement of option would not apply in such a case. The said decision has been followed in subsequent decisions in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi Vs. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region & Others 2012 (1) LCD 674 and several other cases.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this legal position.

¶10

In view of the above, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity aforesaid and pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before them. The claim shall not be rejected on the ground that the employee had not exercised his option under the Government Order dated 23.11.1994.

¶11

While passing the order, the respondents shall also take into consideration the law laid down in the case of Usha Rani v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ - A No.17399 of 2019) decided on 07.11.2019 ; the special appeal filed against which has been dismissed and the S.L.P. No.19089 of 2021 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Usha Rani) has also been dismissed, as well as the Government Order dated 10.01.2023.

¶12

The petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 nishant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yash Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yash Kumar v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Basic Edu. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management P.D.Pandey Inter College Faizabad Vs State of U.P.through Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P.

Dinesh Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Vidya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Tula Ram Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Kusum Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sushila Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others