High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8194 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 515 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shad Khan Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Legal Reasoning
5. It is argued that the petitioner is entitled for the gratuity as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases as noted above. It is further argued that the petitioner is also entitled for the interest as per the law laid down in Writ Petition No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 7.11.2019 by coordinate bench of this Court. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted hereinafter:- "............ Following the decision rendered in the judgment of Noor Jahan (Supra) as well as Smt. Omwati (Supra), matter of Smt. Brijesh (Supra) for payment of gratuity was allowed by this Court by quashing the impugned orders by which gratuity was denied. Similar controversy was also decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 passed in the matter of Smt. Mala Tripathi (Supra) in which Court has taken a similar view and held that if husband of petitioner died before attaining the age of 60 years and has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, gratuity cannot be denied only on this ground. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted below:- "Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the records. From perusal of the records, it clearly comes out that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in an aided and recognized institution. It is also admitted that the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. The only dispute revolves around the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. The ground taken by the respondents of the petitioner's husband not having opted for retiring at the age of 60 years which thus entails non-payment of gratuity to her at the very out set does not stand to legal scrutiny inasmuch as it is an admitted case by the respondents also that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 26.08.2012 despite his actual date of superannuation being November 2019. Thus, an employee is only expected to submit an option prior to his retirement and not decades prior to his retirement. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondents and even the letter of the Institution dated 19.03.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition, does not address the aforesaid issue. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the petition) cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law. As such, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 19.03.2014. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in accordance with law and relevant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." Facts of the case and dispute involved in the present case is squarely covered by the pronouncements made by this Court which are referred herein above, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 30.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 7- Block Education Officer Block Kadarchauk, District Badaun is hereby Respondents are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ............" quashed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no. 3 along with certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. In case, the aforesaid representation will file within the aforesaid period, the respondent no. 3 will take a decision in the matter most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Aiman Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2.The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this applicaiton and to issue an ad-interim mandamus commanding / directing (i) the respondent no.3 to decide 1st representation dated 15.04.2024 pending before him and also (ii) the respondent no. 2 & 4 to make the complete amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner alongwith compound interest on total amount of gratuity on delay payment either at the rate 18% per annum as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Usha Rani or at the rate and within the time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court in the light of judgment dated 15.05.2024 passed in case of Smt. Tanuja vs. State since the date of petitioner's retirement i.e. 11.12.2020 till the date of payment actual disbursement of total amount of gratuity alongwith its interest, failing which petitioner shall suffer irreparable loos and injury and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. Facts in brief as contained in the present writ petition are that the petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Uchchatar Prathmik Vidyalaya, Mahewa Kala, District Kasganj submitted in application for his voluntary retirement, the same was duly accepted by the District Basic Education Officer/respondent no. 3 vide order dated 11.12.2020. Subsequent to the same, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no. 3 on 15.04.2024 for payment of gratuity in his favour. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner only on account of the reason that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement . Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph 7 of the judgment delivered on 07.05.2024 by a coordinate bench of this Court in the Case of Sehrun Nisha Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 6402 of 2024). He also placed reliance to the case of Smt. Tanuja Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-A No. 6269 of 2024), decided on 15.05.2024 by this Court.