Disposed

Kailasha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Fisheries Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024WRIA/10218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a petition seeking mandamus for payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The court noted a government order declaring employees entitled to gratuity. The court directed the respondent to pay the petitioner's gratuity within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to ensure payment of gratuity to the petitioner within three months from receipt of the certified copy of this order, and to consider admissibility of interest on delayed payme

Kailasha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75386

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10218 of 2024 Petitioner :- Kailasha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Fisheries Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Banwari Lal Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide gratuity to the petitioner in view of the judgement of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 456 of 2015 as well as notification issued by the State Government dated 06.09.1997.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner's husband having died on 12.01.2017 while working in the fisheries department neither gratuity was paid to him nor to the petitioner - the widow.

¶10

This Court had required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.

¶11

Today Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, informs on the basis of instructions sent by the respondent no. 3 dated 11.11.2024 that the employees of the Matasya Palak Vikas Abhikaran, Raebareli have been found entitled for being paid gratuity in pursuance to the government order dated 27.02.2024 and that an endeavor is now being made to get budget from the respondent no.2 so that gratuity can be

¶12

paid to the employees and in turn to the petitioner.

¶13

The aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶14

As the employees have been found entitled for being paid gratuity as per government order dated 27.02.2024 as such it is apparent that even the petitioner in the capacity of being the widow of an employee of the said department would be entitled to be paid the gratuity.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to ensure that the gratuity as due to the petitioner is paid within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment.

¶16

The admissibility of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity would also be considered by the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kailasha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Fisheries Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailasha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Fisheries Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Co-Operative Lko. and Anr.

Smt. Arun Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamaik Edu. Lko and Others

Ram Jatan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chini Udyog and Ganna Vikas Vibhag Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Ji vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Neeraj Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry. of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Bahadur Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 3 Others