Zia Ullah Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Zia Ullah Khan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned conditional order dated 27.03.2025 quashed and set aside; District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar directed to reconsider the gratuity claim in accordance with law within one month of receipt of certified copy; other retiral dues, if unpaid, to be paid forthwith; if fault is found in passing the conditional order, interest to be paid from the officer's salary/personal account.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conditional order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, accepting the petitioner's voluntary retirement while denying gratuity, was sustainable in law or arbitrary and without authority. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned conditional order denying gratuity is quashed and set aside, and the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar is directed to reconsider the claim of gratuity in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner's other retiral dues have not yet been paid, they shall be paid forthwith.

Key takeaways

The reconsideration exercise directed upon the District Basic Education Officer shall be completed within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.ratio¶20
If any fault is found on the part of the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar in passing the conditional order, the amount of interest shall be paid from his salary/personal account.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Writ-A No. 15946 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.; decided October 29, 2025): A petitioner who had taken voluntary retirement at the age of 57 years under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme challenged the conditional words in the order dated 27.03.2025 of the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, whereby his voluntary retirement was accepted but gratuity was denied. Counsel for the respondent side did not defend the condition and merely sought one opportunity for the District Basic Education Officer to verify the provisions of law. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned conditional order and directed the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar to reconsider the claim of gratuity in accordance with law, completing the exercise within one month of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It further directed that if the petitioner's other retiral dues remained unpaid they be paid forthwith, and that if fault were found in passing the conditional order, the interest would be paid from the officer's salary/personal account. The writ petition was disposed of. No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment; no mandamus for payment of interest at 9% (as prayed) was issued.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 15946 of 2025

Zia Ullah Khan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi

Court No. - 35

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the word " िकन्तु ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा देय नही होगी। " mentioned in the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent no. 2/ District Basic Education Officer Kanpur Nagar.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity alongwith interest @ 9% till the actual payment.

C. Issue a writ order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme at the age of 57 years, and therefore, he is entitled to gratuity as it forms part of the retiral dues. Although the amount may vary since he has not completed service up to the age of 60 years, he is nevertheless entitled to receive gratuity. The conditional order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the petitioner?s voluntary retirement has been accepted while denying gratuity, is arbitrary and without any authority of law. The District Basic Education Officer has passed the said order without referring to any provision of law under which gratuity has been refused in the case of voluntary retirement, particularly when the retirement terms include the Voluntary Retirement

WRIA No. 15946 of 2025

2

Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no provision under law for denial of gratuity in cases of voluntary retirement.

Sri Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for respondent-Basic Education Board/Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, submits that one opportunity may be granted to the District Basic Education Officer to verify the provisions of law whether such conditional order could be passed refusing gratuity in case of voluntary retirement.

In light of the above submission, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar to reconsider the claim of gratuity in accordance with law. In case, the other retiral dues have not yet been paid to the petitioner, the same shall be paid forthwith.

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In case, any fault is found on the part of the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar in passing such conditional order, the amount of interest shall be paid from his salary/personal account.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

October 29, 2025 DKS

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