Dismissed¶35

Rehana Khatoon v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2026WRIA/5881/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

gratuity; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 2(e); teacher; Head Master; Junior Basic School; Ghazipur; death in service; continuation of service beyond 60 years; Government order dated 24.12.2025; family pension; Smt. Mehar Jahan distinguished; Shishpal Singh Gahlaut 2026:AHC:66440; writ petition dismissed; liberty to file fresh representation; Allahabad High Court; Manju Rani Chauhan, J.; Writ-A No. 5881 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh, detailed representation before respondent no.3 (District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur), which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. ¶35

Rehana Khatoon vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.3 should be directed to decide the petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity of her late husband (who continued in service till the age of 61 years), in light of the Government order dated 24.12.2025, and whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for; no interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The judgment in Smt. Mehar Jahan relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the petitioner therein had retired at the age of 60 years, whereas the petitioner's husband here continued in service till the age of 61 years.

¶35

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner submits a fresh, detailed representation before respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no.3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) dismissed a writ petition filed by Rehana Khatoon, widow of Late Shamsher, a Head Master in a Junior Basic School, District Ghazipur, who died in service on 17.06.2017 at the age of 61 years, seeking a direction to respondent no.3 to decide her claim for payment of gratuity in light of the Government order dated 24.12.2025. The Court held that the Division Bench decision in Smt. Mehar Jahan (Writ-A No. 12810 of 2024), relied upon by the petitioner, was not applicable since the teacher therein had retired at the age of 60 years, whereas the petitioner's husband had continued in service till the age of 61 years; the petitioner was therefore not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. The Court, however, granted liberty to submit a fresh, detailed representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, to be considered and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In the course of the hearing, the judgment in Shishpal Singh Gahlaut vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, 2026:AHC:66440 (holding that gratuity is not admissible to those who continue service beyond 60 years and that teachers of basic institutions are not 'employees' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) was extracted at length.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5881 of 2026

Rehana Khatoon

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava : Bipin Bihari Pandey, C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

2. The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no.3 to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of gratuity of her late husband, in the light of the Government order dated 24.12.2025, within a specific period, in accordance with law.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband Late Shamsher who worked as Head Master in Junior Basic School, District Ghazipur, died on 17.06.2017 during service period at the age of 61 years. On 18.01.2018, the petitioner moved an application before respondent-authorities to release all the dues in favour of the petitioner as well as family pension. Though the entire benefits were given to the petitioner but the amount of gratuity has not been paid, therefore, representation has been moved before the respondent-authorities to pay the gratuity in the light of the Government order dated 24.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mehar Jahan vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, passed in Writ -A No.12810 of 2024, decided on 09.04.2026 , wherein the petitioner therein, who was working as a teacher in an aided institution and had retired at the age of 60 years,

¶14

WRIA No. 5881 of 2026

¶15

¶16

was granted liberty and respondent no.4 was directed to decide her claim in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of gratuity in view of the observations made in the aforesaid case.

¶17

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the issue has already been decided by this Court in a similar matter, one of such cases being Shishpal Singh Gahlaut vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, 2026:AHC:66440 , wherein it has been held as under:-

¶18

“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Gaurav Bisen, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4, and perused the record.

¶19

By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged Government Orders dated 23.11.1994 and 04.02.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgement of a Coordinate Bench at Lucknow Bench passed in Writ-A No. 5724 of 2024 (University College Ret. Teachers Welfare Asso. Lko. Thru. Its President Dr. S.S.Chauhan And Anotherv. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education U.P. Lko. And Others), wherein the Government orders were under challenge and the Coordinate Bench of Lucknow Bench has quashed those Government Orders to the extent of denial of gratuity benefits to such teachers who exercised their option to continue in service for the extended period. In view of the said judgement, the petitioners are entitled for the same relief.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent BSA as well as learned Standing Counsel submit that the petitioners are relying upon a judgement, wherein the petitioners were employed in various colleges affiliated to Universities, whereas the petitioners in the present case are Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, therefore, judgement is not applicable in the present case, however, they also submit that the aforesaid order was challenged in Special Appeal Defective No. 249 of 2025 (State of U.P. Through. Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Lucknow and 2 Others v. University College Retired Teachers' Welfare Association, U.P. Lucknow through its President and another), wherein the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been stayed, vide order dated 30.07.2025. Learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon a judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2026 passed in bunch of

¶21

WRIA No. 5881 of 2026

¶22

¶23

writ petition, lead petition being Writ-A No. 17748 of 2025 (Jaiveeri v. State of U.P. and 3 others), wherein following order has been passed:-

¶24

"The present petitions have been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders, by which the claim for payment of gratuity has been rejected.

¶25

The petitioners in all the writ petitions have continued after 60 years of age without exercising their option for retirement.

¶26

Mr. Devesh Vikram and Mr.Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the BSA submits that the controversy has already been settled in Special Appeal Defective No.812 of 2024 (Asha Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others) as decided on 30.4.2025, wherein it has been held that gratuity would not be admissible to those who continue service beyond the age of 60 years. He has also relied upon another judgment passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. - 41 of 2025 (Bindra Prasad Patel vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) as decided on 8.7.2025, wherein it has been held that a teacher (including Headmaster) of a basic institution cannot be held to be the employee under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972. The benefits available to an employee under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would thus not be available to such a teacher. Accordingly, the petitioner is also not entitled for the gratuity as claimed. Relying upon another judgment passed by this Court in Writ - A No. - 8823 of 2025 (Sirajul Hasan Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others) as decided on 14.7.2025, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A submits that teacher including Headmaster, Basic Institution cannot be held to be an employee under Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, they are not entitled for any benefits under the aforesaid Act.

¶27

The petitioners submit that the matter regarding same controversy is pending before the Division Bench.

¶28

This Court is of the opinion that once the issue has already been decided by one Division Bench of this Court, as a Single Judge, this Court cannot interfere in the matter.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed."

¶30

In view of the above, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the present matter.

¶31

The writ petitions are dismissed.

¶32

WRIA No. 5881 of 2026

¶33

¶34

No order as to costs.”

¶35

5. As regards the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the aforesaid judgment the petitioner had retired at the age of 60 years, whereas in the present case, the petitioner's husband continued in service till the age of 61 years. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

6. However, it is provided that in case a fresh, detailed representation is submitted by the petitioner before respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent no.3, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶38

April 23, 2026

¶39

Rahul.

¶40

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rehana Khatoon v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehana Khatoon v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Harsh Pandey vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Tripathi vs State of Up and 7 Others

Sneh Lata vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murari Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others