Disposed

Sushil Kumar Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basis Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2025WRIA/9775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Allahabad High Court referred to a Division Bench judgment to direct the competent authority to reconsider the grant of additional gratuity to the legal heirs of a deceased Assistant Teacher who died in harness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to ask competent authority to consider claim for additional gratuity of Rs. 5,00,000/- within six weeks based on Bindra Prasad Patel judgment.

Sushil Kumar Tripathi and 3 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 9775 of 2025

¶3

Sushil Kumar Tripathi And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basis Education Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Vikram Shahi, Abhinav Kumar Shukla, Aryak Wadhawan, Gyan Sagar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Tiwari

¶7

Court No. - 4

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sahrash Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶10

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

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1's wife namely Smt. Sushila Tripathi and the mother of the petitioners no. 2 & 3 who was working as Assistant Teacher died in harness on 03.06.2024.

¶12

Although the petitioners in the capacity of being legal heirs have been paid gratuity of Rs. 20,00,000/- but in terms of the Government orders dated 23.12.2016 as clarified on 02.07.2024, copies of which are annexures 1 & 2 to the writ petition, the maximum amount of gratuity payable to employees retiring on or after 01.01.2024 has been enhanced to Rs. 25,00,000/- consequently, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are entitled of the enhanced balance amount Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶13

The aforesaid is objected by Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the

¶14

WRIA No. 9775 of 2025

¶15

¶16

respondent no.4 by contending that as Smt. Sushila Tripathi was working as an Assistant Teacher in a school administered by the Board consequently, so far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, the Government order dated 23.08.2017 would be attracted which only provides for payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the employees of the board and thus there is no infirmity in the respondents in have only paid Rs. 20,00,000/- as gratuity to the legal heirs of Smt. Sushila Tripathi.

¶17

Responding, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this aspect of the matter has only been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case Bindra Prasad Patel Vs. State of U.P and Ors2025:AHC:106762:DB wherein the Division Bench has held that a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher appointed in an educational institution established by the Board holds a post under the State Government.

¶18

Contention is that keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Patel (supra) and Smt. Sushila Tripathi being an Assistant Teacher of a school administered by the Board consequently, she would be deemed to be a Government servant and as such, the petitioners in the capacity of being the legal heirs would be entitled for being paid gratuity of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the Pension Payment order that had been issued to the petitioner no. 1, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition to indicate that the said Pension Payment Order also indicates that the respondent no. 4 has called for a proposal for payment of the gratuity of Rs. 25,00,000/- consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have only paid Rs. 20,00,000/- as gratuity to the petitioners.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the competent authority who is said to be the respondent no. 2 i.e Director General, Basic Education, Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the Government orders dated 23.12.2016 as clarified on 02.07.2024, copies of which are annexures 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Patel (supra) .

¶21

WRIA No. 9775 of 2025

¶22

¶23

In case, the competent authority finds that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bindra Prasad Patel (supra) irrespective of the Government order dated 23.08.2017 them the petitioners would be paid the balance amount of gratuity of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶24

Let such consideration be done by the competent authority in accordance with law and the relevant rules which consideration would be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶26

September 4, 2025

¶27

Pachhere/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Kumar Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basis Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Tripathi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basis Education Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, and 3 Others

Sunita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and Another

Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Tanu Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 7 Others

Onkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 4 Others