Applicant sought punishment for non-compliance with a writ-court directive to pay interest on delayed gratuity. The special appeal against that directive had been dismissed; the opposite party was found to have taken no compliance steps during his tenure. Case listed for compliance affidavit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 977 of 2025
Applicant :- Shabiha Bano Opposite Party :- Bholendra Pratap Singh, District Basic Edu. Officer District Ambedkar Nagar Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prashant Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
"1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on delayed payment of the gratuity. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband died on 19.10.2016 whereas the gratuity has been credited in the account of the petitioner on 03.03.2022, but till the date no interest has been paid, hence the instant writ petition.
3. Considering the fact that on payment of gratuity, the statutory interest is prescribed under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the present petition is disposed off directing respondents to ensure payment of interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of delay in
payment of gratuity.
4. The amount of interest shall be paid from the date of death till the actual payment as indicated in Para - 4 of the writ petition.
5. The interest as directed to be awarded herein above, shall be paid to the petitioner positively within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
6. In case, the amount is not paid within a period of three months as directed above, the same shall carry a further interest at the rate of 7% on the unpaid interest as directed above.
7. The writ petition is disposed off in above terms.
8. This order has been passed in the presence of learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4. "
"(C. M. Application No.1 of 2025-Application for condonation of delay)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Shubham Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Anupma Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
There is delay of about 463 days in filing the instant appeal.
The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. Learned State Counsel representing the respondents does not have any objection, if delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned and the matter is heard on merits.
Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and in absence of any objection, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
(Order on Appeal)
The present intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the writ court in Writ A No.9766 of 2023 "Shabiha Bano vs. State of U.P. and others", whereby, the payment of gratuity in terms of Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act has been allowed in favour of respondent no.1 along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee.
Admittedly, the death of the deceased employee occurred much before attaining the age of 60 years. Whether such an employee had exercised the option for being retained in service upto the age of 62 years or not would be immaterial for grant of the benefit of gratuity.
The submission put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is that the payment of gratuity would have been admissible to the deceased employee only if he had exercised the option for being retained in service upto attaining the age of 60 years and not otherwise. The failure to exercise any such option, therefore, would dis-entitle the deceased employee for payment of gratuity, inasmuch as, the age of retirement in that case would be 62 years and not less.
The submission put forth by learned counsel for the appellant is fallacious.
Once natural death has occurred before attaining the age of 60 years, the question of exercising the option becomes meaningless.
The writ court, having appreciated the submissions in the light of statutory provisions, has rightly allowed the claim from the date of death as per the mandate of the statute. The reasoning and directions issued by the writ court, in our humble consideration, do not suffer from any illegality calling for interference.
The writ Court, while deciding the grievance raised by the respondent no.1 in the earlier Writ Petition No.5349 of 2021, had already issued specific directions on 25.03.2021 to the effect that while considering the representation of the respondent, her claim shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not exercised his option.
The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. "
29.04.2025. It is also evident that the the opposite party has worked as District Inspector of Schools, Ambedkar Nagar from July, 2021 to June, 2025 but he has not made any effort to comply with the order of Writ Court.
Order Date :- 11.7.2025 V. Sinha
Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Shabiha Bano
Bholendra Pratap Singh
Praveen Kumar Tiwari
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
