Partly allowed

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023WRIA/10062/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking death cum retirement gratuity for employees who died in harness. Granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer representation with the District Inspector of Schools, the court directed the respondent to consider the claims and pass an order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer representation; respondent to consider claim and pass reasoned order within three months.

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:129894

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10062 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners who are four in number as well as Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the respondents no. 1 to 5.

¶7

In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today notices are not being issued to the respondents no. 6 to 8.

¶8

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has argued that in so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned his father namely Sri Man Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.11.1973 in Shri Kisan Vidyapeeth Higher Secondary School Daleep Pur (Barauni Kalan), Etawah and he was transferred from the said institution to Smt. Indira Gandhi Inter College Kharagpur Saraiya, Etawah by virtue of the order dated 2.11.1976 and he died-in-harness on 24.1.1997.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner the petitioner no.1 date of birth was 7.7.1940 and he died at the age of 57 years.

¶9

It is further argued that the petitioner no.2 namely Shri Kayam Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 9.1.1974 in Ram Manohar Inter College, Etawah and he died-in-harness on 18.4.1998 and his date of birth was 30.11.1939 and he was aged about 59 years. So far as the petitioner no.3 namely Shri Pooran Singh was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.1.1968 in Higher Secondary School Dhanuwan, Etawah and he died-in-harness on 7.1.1992 and his date of birth was 25.7.1933 aged about 59 years. Lastly, it is being sought to be argued that so far as the petitioner no.4 is concerned he being Shri Ravi Kiran Singh was appointed on the post of Lecturer on 17.3.1980 in Smt. Indira Ganghi Inter College, Kharagpur, Etawah and he died-in-harness on 3.11.2010, date of birth being 1.1.1955 and he was 55 years of age.

¶10

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the aforesaid

¶11

four writ petitioners who have been marked in the present writ petition did not exercise option and that is the only basis on which they have been denied death cum retirement gratuity.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submits that the ground which is being sought to be taken to denude them from the benefits is per se illegal, arbitrary and non-existent particularly in view of the fact that the gratuity cannot be withheld on the basis of the fact that the option has not been exercised.

¶13

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision in Writ-A No.4265 of 2023, Mithlesh Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and four others so as to further contends that in the similar circumstances this Court on 22.5.2023 had passed an interim order fixing the matter on 22.5.2023 calling upon the respondents to file their reply.

¶14

Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents no. 4 and 5, Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Kanpur Region, Kanpur and District Inspector of Schools, Etawah to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of death cum retirement benefits.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that no final orders has been passed according consideration to the claim of the writ petitioners who are four in number and according to him they do not propose to file any counter affidavit, rather the writ petition be disposed off with a direction to the fifth respondent District Inspector of Schools, Etawah to accord consideration upon the claim of the writ petitioners.

¶16

Considering the submissions of rival parties and stand taken by them, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer a appropriate representation individually along with the self attested copy of the petition before the fifth respondent,District Inspector of Schools, Etawah who shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioners. It is further clarified fifth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall also call for the records from the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents from any other authority for the purposes of determining the claim of the writ petition.

¶17

Needless to point out that the fifth respondent District Inspector of Schools, Etawah shall also look into the competing claim if any of others and proceed to pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of the

¶18

production of the certified copy of this order.

¶19

Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed off .

¶20

Passing of the order today may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter as the writ petition is being disposed off on the basis of ex parte version without calling for the response. The fifth respondent shall accord consideration independently without being obsessed or influenced by any of the observation made herein above.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 piyush

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Sunil@ Pankaj@ Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nikunj Rajput @ Nikunj Naiwal Chipi (Minor) Vs Central Board of Secondary Education and 2 Others

Ruchi Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others