Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and others). Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is extracted h

"............ 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 quashed. 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. ............"

3. Notice on behalf of respondents no.4, 5 & 6 has been received by Sri A. K. Singh, Advocate, on 20.02.20205. Today when the matter is taken up, it is argued by him that information regarding present writ petition has been sent by his office to the respondent no.4 on 21.02.2025 but till date no instructions has been provided.

4. It is unfortunate that inspite of the specific direction given by this Court from time to time as well as by the State Government instructions were not provided by the concerned-District Basic Education Official.

5. It is argued by Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 to 6 that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no. 4 to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgement in the case of Usha Rani (supra) within stipulated period.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.4/District Basic Education Officer, Agra certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.4 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks in the light of the judgement of Usha Rani (supra). All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.

8. Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the deceased employee.

9. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Pramod Tripathi PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"............ 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 quashed. 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. ............"

3. Notice on behalf of respondents no.4, 5 & 6 has been received by Sri A. K. Singh, Advocate, on 20.02.20205. Today when the matter is taken up, it is argued by him that information regarding present writ petition has been sent by his office to the respondent no.4 on 21.02.2025 but till date no instructions has been provided.

4. It is unfortunate that inspite of the specific direction given by this Court from time to time as well as by the State Government instructions were not provided by the concerned-District Basic Education Official.

5. It is argued by Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 to 6 that no useful purpose would be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no. 4 to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of judgement in the case of Usha Rani (supra) within stipulated period.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.4/District Basic Education Officer, Agra certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.4 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks in the light of the judgement of Usha Rani (supra). All consequential action shall be taken without any further loss of time.

8. Petitioner's claim for gratuity shall not be rejected on the ground that "Option Form" has not been filled by the deceased employee.

9. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Pramod Tripathi PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad