Allowed

Smt. Asha Pathak v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023WRIA/2059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court directed the State of U.P. and respondent authorities to pay family pension, provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, and group insurance to the petitioner. The Court also issued a writ of mandamus compelling the issuance of a compassionate appointment to the petitioner upon submission of a formatted application.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus issued to pay retiral dues and consider application for compassionate appointment within three months.

Smt. Asha Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2059 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Asha Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyam Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶4

Present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to provide Family Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance and other retiral benefit to the petitioner in lieu of death of her husband Sri Rajnath Pathak."

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner before the Court is wife of deceased employee and her name is also mentioned in the service book of deceased employee. But, after the death of husband of petitioner, no retiral dues has been paid to her.

¶7

Pursuant to order of this Court dated 13.02.2023, Sri Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has produced instruction having no date and signature, but a seal of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Bank Limited, Headquarter, Lucknow. As per the instruction, he submitted that payment of Provident Fund has been made to petitioner, but as deceased employee had executed a will deed dated 15.12.2009 in favour of respondent No. 6, therefore, certain retiral dues, i.e. Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance has not been paid to petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that undisputedly, petitioner is the wife of deceased employee and her name is also mentioned in the service book of her late husband. The said nomination has never been changed by the deceased employee till his service period. Therefore, as per Regulation 95 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Regulations, 1975(hereinafter, referred to as, 'Regulations, 1975'), nominee is entitled for payment of gratuity and in absence of nominee, legal heir. Undisputedly, the petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee, is legal heir and also nominee in service book of her late husband, therefore, she is entitled for payment of gratuity. On

¶9

this point, law is well settled that after death of husband, wife is having first entitlement for retiral/terminal dues.

¶10

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 576 of 2023 (Smt. Kiran Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. And 3 others) and submitted that wife is only entitled for retiral/terminal dues.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 104 of Regulations, 1975, wife is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, as, under the definition of family, the first occupant is wife/husband in case of death of spouse.

¶12

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in Service Single No. 2532 of 2014 Virendra Kumar Srivastava & Another Vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through Re) and submitted that direction may be issued respondent to appoint petitioner on compassionate ground in ligh of judgment and order passed by this Court in Virendra Kumar Srivastava(Supra) .

¶13

Sri Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 could not dispute the aforesaid facts and legal submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perused Regulations, 1975 and judgment and orders so relied upon. As per provisions of Regulations, 1975, petitioner is having full entitlement for payment of gratuity and appointment on compassionate ground. Not only this, in the judgment of Virendra Kumar Srivastava(Supra) and Smt. Kiran Sonkar(Supra), this Court has taken the very same view. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed .

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

Writ of Mandamus is issued to respondent No. 2 to pay the retiral/terminal dues to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and further, consider her application dated 19.05.2022 for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law within the same time frame.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.2.2023/ADY

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Asha Pathak v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asha Pathak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heera Lal Vs State of U P and Another

Sachin Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Prajapati and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Maya Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others