Mirza Imran Beg v. State Of U.P. And
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11159 of 2025 Mirza Imran Beg State Of U.P. And 3 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sanjay Kumar Srivastava : Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C. Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel for respondent- B.S.A. as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "A-Issue a writ order in the nature of certiorari and to quash the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which he has illegally reject the claim of gratuity accordance with law. B-Issue a writ order in the nature of mandamus and to direct the competent respondents to calculate and release the amount of gratuity, along with reasonable rate of interest of the late petitioner's mother in favour of petitioner within a specific time accordance with law." Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother worked as Headmistress at Senior Basic School, Jitauli, Block- Nidhauli Kala, District- Etah. The aforesaid institution is run and controlled by U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. He further contends that the petitioner's mother has submitted her option form for voluntary retirement at the age of 60 years before the Assistant Block Education Officer, Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah on 6.5.2017. The same was verified by the Assistant Block Education Officer, Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah and forwarded the same to the District Basic Education Officer, Etah, District- Etah (respondent no.3) on 2.6.2017. Accordingly, the respondent no.3, by 2 WRIA No. 11159 of 2025 its order dated 26.2.2018, permitted the petitioner's mother to voluntarily retire on 31.3.2019. In view of the aforesaid order dated 26.2.2018, the petitioner's mother voluntarily retired from service on 31.3.2019, thus, qualifying for all the post retiral dues to which she was entitled for, upon retiring at the age of 60 years. The petitioner's mother expired on 23.4.2019, after which the petitioner's father received post retiral dues except for gratuity and family pension. The petitioner's father expired on 1.10.2021 and after his death, the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on 17.11.2021. The claim of gratuity of the petitioner's mother was not considered despite repeated representation, therefore, Writ - A No.1403 of 2025 (Mirza Imran Beg vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) was filed and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 5.2.2025, disposed of the aforesaid petition, directing the respondent no.3 therein to take decision within four weeks from that date. In compliance of the aforesaid, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the order impugned, hence, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government as well as the U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj have issued government orders and circulars from time to time with respect to payment of gratuity to those teachers who have submitted their option for voluntary retirement at the age of 60 years. In consonance with the aforesaid, the petitioner's mother had submitted her option form for voluntarily retiring at the age of 60 years, which was allowed by the concerned authority by order dated 26.8.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother retired from service on 31.3.2019. He further submits that as per the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 issued by the State Government of U.P., revision of pension and other retiral benefits to the retired employees of department of Basic Education is provided. The government order grants higher benefits with effect from 1.1.2006. Clause 4 (1) of the said government order provides that pension would not be payable to those employees who has not completed 10 years qualifying service but the employee who has retired upon attaining at the 3 WRIA No. 11159 of 2025 age of superannuation i.e. 60 years would be entitled for gratuity and other service benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother who submitted her option for retirement at the age of 60 years is entitled for gratuity. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as Lucknow bench of this Hon'ble Court in Writ - A No. - 17699 of 2023 (Smt Asha Lata Chaubey vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others) as decided on 4.3.2024, Writ-A No.40568 of 2016 (Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 04.01.2018, Writ-A No.8679 of 2018 (Smt. Omwati Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 09.03.2018, Writ-A No.6049 of 2019 (Smt. Brijesh Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 26.04.2019, Writ-A No.14397 of 2019 (Renu Gupta Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 24.10.2019, Writ-A No.1799 of 2016 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 07.11.2019, Service Single No.6173 of 2014 ( Mala Tripathi Vs. State of U.P and other) decided on 05.08.2019 as well as Writ-A No.31167 of 2007 (Suresh Kumar Gadi vs. State of U.P. And Others) as decided on 25.11.2011. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed, as the petitioner's mother retired on 31.3.2019 as Headmistress and died on 23.4.2019. He further submits that considering her date of birth, she retired after having rendered total service till the age of 60 years, 9 months and 11 days. As at the time of retirement, she was more than 60 years of age, thus, as per the provisions mentioned in Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 3.2.2023, the petitioner's mother is not entitled for the benefits of gratuity. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. has relied upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court 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 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 4 WRIA No. 11159 of 2025 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, she is not entitled for any benefits under the aforesaid Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions as made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the averments as made by learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. in paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit have not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the Government Order dated 3.2.2023 is not applicable on the facts of the present case nor has placed any such submission before this Court. In view of the Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 3.2.2023, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed, accordingly. September 8, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad