Dr. Durga Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 22.5.2025 passed by the respondent no.3/District Inspector of Schools on the ground that finding of the impugned order itself is perverse and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was appointed in primary section of Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Hardoi, vide order dated 4.7.1986 passed by the Manager and, subsequently, she was promoted as L.T. Grade Teacher and thereafter on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The State Government framed rules named as Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahayata Prapt Uchchtar Madhymik Vidyalaya ke Adhyapkon ki Mrityu Tatha Sewa Nrivitti Anutoshik Niyamawali, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1981'), which commenced with effect from 30.6.1978 and the eligibility criterion for getting the gratuity is provided under Rule 11 thereof. Vide Government Order dated 24.6.1983, the State Government provided the facility of voluntary retirement to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Inter Colleges on attaining the age of 45 years or completing 20 years of service. Subsequently, a Government Order was also issued on
6.10.1990, for submitting options within 90 days and thereafter, another Government Order was issued on 17.2.1999 by the State Government 2 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 making provision to the effect that teachers of Government colleges or Government aided colleges may change their date of retirement upto first July of the academic session of their retirement. Thereafter, by the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, age of retirement of teachers of the Inter College was extended from 60 years to 62 years. The petitioner after completion of about 37 years of service submitted an application on 3.11.2023 before the Manager of the Committee of Management of the college concerned and the Committee of Management allowed the application of the petitioner, vide the resolution of the committee, and the petitioner got retired on 31.3.2024. The pension payment order was issued on 22.7.2024 but the payment of gratuity was not done to the petitioner whereafter being aggrieved, the petitioner moved representation and same was not decided. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ A No.2123 of 2025 which was disposed of with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the order impugned has been passed, which is under challenge. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted her option for retirement on 3.11.2023 and the same is in consonance with the Government Orders, i.e., much prior to first July of the date of retirement. He submits that Rule 11 of the Rules 1981 clearly envisages the provisions regarding payment of gratuity to the teachers of the Inter College and subsequent thereof, Rules 1981 was promulgated and that was given effect to, with effect from 30.6.1978. Further contention is that, vide the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, the age of retirement of teachers of Inter College was extended from 60 years to 62 years and, therefore, the option of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner was much prior to the date as is required to be given. He has also drawn attention towards the order impugned and submitted that the finding is utterly perverse as claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled as per the provisions of Rules 1981 as well as subsequent Government Order dated 4.2.2004, contrary the entitlement of payment of gratuity is provided under Rule 11 of the Rules 1981. Further submission is that it is apparent from the Government Order dated 4.2.2024 that age of superannuation has been fixed as 62 years in place of 60 3 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 years and, therefore, the date of option of voluntary retirement, which has been 3.11.2023, is much prior to 1.7.2025. He submitted that denial on such ground for payment of gratuity is not only unlawful but also against the settled proposition of law. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by this Court in Writ-A No.28657 of 2014, Dr Onkar Nath Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and four others, decided on 25.10.2017 and he has referred para 17 of the aforesaid Judgment, which is quoted as under:- "17. Thus, from the facts and legal position as noted above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity inasmuch he has exercised option for voluntary retirement vide application 01.08.2009 which was accepted by order of the D.I.O.S. dated 24.10.2009. voluntarily retiring him w.e.f. 31.10.2009. The petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years on 30.06.2011 and at the age of 62 years on 30.06.2013. Thus, in any case the option for retirement stood exercised by him before one year of the Academic Session in which he was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity as per the Rules 1981. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not covered under the Rules 1981 and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools has rightly come to the conclusion for not granting gratuity to him. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it emerges that the gratuity to the petitioner has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that the benefit of the provisions of Rules 1981 is not available to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance, for payment of gratuity. Rule 11 is extracted as under:- "भाग (ग) सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क आनुतािषक 11 (1) (2)- िवक(cid:289)प प(cid:347) के अनुसार 58 (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की अविध पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने पर। 11(2)- 58 वष(cid:259) (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने का िवक(cid:289)प देने वाले ऐसे अ(cid:280)यापक जो 20 वष(cid:259) की अह(cid:259)कारी सेवा पूरी कर लेते अथवा 45 वष(cid:259) की आयु (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त कर लेने के प(cid:499)ात (cid:293)वे(cid:267)छा से सेवािनवृ(cid:485) 4 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 होना चाह(cid:517)। 11(3) 58 वष(cid:259) (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने का िवक(cid:289)प देने वाले ऐसे अ(cid:280)यापक जो आगे सेवा के िलए (cid:293)थायी (cid:628)प से असमथ(cid:259) होने का (cid:352)माण-प(cid:347) देकर 58 वष(cid:259) की आयु के पूव(cid:259) सेवािनवृ(cid:485) हो। त(cid:277)प(cid:499)ात् शासनादेश सं(cid:263)या- 127/15-8-2004-16-िनयम/2003 टी०सी० िश(cid:87)ा (8) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 04 फरवरी, 2004 म(cid:517) िन(cid:286)नवत् िनद(cid:518)श (cid:352)दान िकये गये है- "शासन (cid:497)ारा स(cid:286)यक िवचारोपरा(cid:281)त अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) म(cid:517) शासन (cid:497)ारा सृिजत पद(cid:523) पर िनयमानुसार काय(cid:259)रत अ(cid:280)यापक(cid:523) की वत(cid:259)मान अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु को 60 वष(cid:259) से ब(cid:238)ाकर 62 वष(cid:259) िकये जाने की सहष(cid:259) (cid:293)वीकृ ित (cid:352)दान करते ह(cid:520)। फल(cid:293)व(cid:628)प 58 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर िमलने वाले सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क लाभ अब 60 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर तथा 60 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर िमलने वाले सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क लाभ 62 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर अनुम(cid:281)य होगे। (cid:361)ी रा(cid:269)यपाल महोदय यह भी आदेश (cid:352)दान करते ह(cid:520) िक जो िश(cid:87)क 01 जुलाई, 2003 के प(cid:499)ात् अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पूण(cid:259) पर स(cid:347)ांत लाभ कर चल रहे ह(cid:520) उ(cid:281)ह(cid:517) भी अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु वृि(cid:490) स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)धी लाभ (cid:352)दान िकया जायेगा। उ(cid:472) शासनादेश के िनग(cid:259)त होने पर याची सेवािनवृि(cid:485) की िवक(cid:289)प (cid:498)व(cid:293)था 60/62 वष(cid:259) से आ(cid:267)छािदत हो गए। िजसके अनुसार 60 वष(cid:515)य िवक(cid:289)प का चयन करने वाले िश(cid:87)क को उपादान (गे(cid:267)युटी) का लाभ(cid:352)दान िकया जाने का (cid:352)ािवधान कर िदया गया। शासन/िवभाग (cid:497)ारा बार-बार िनद(cid:518)श िनग(cid:259)त (cid:631)ए िजससे याची (cid:293)वयं िभ(cid:88) थ(cid:514)। िजसके आधार पर इ(cid:281)हे 60 वष(cid:515)य िवक(cid:289)प का चयन करना चािहए था। िक(cid:281)तु इनके (cid:497)ारा 60 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के िवक(cid:289)प का चयन नह(cid:514) िकया गया। संयु(cid:472) सिचव, उ०(cid:352)० शासन के आदेश सं(cid:263)या- 95/15-8-99/3003(78)/90 िव(cid:485) अनुभाग (8) िदनाक 17 फरवरी, 1999 म(cid:517) 60 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)धी शासनादेश म(cid:517) यह (cid:498)व(cid:293)था की गई है- अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) के िश(cid:87)क(cid:523) (cid:497)ारा सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के एक वष(cid:259) पूव(cid:259) अथा(cid:259)त िजस शैि(cid:87)क वष(cid:259) म(cid:517) उनकी सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होगी उसकी जुलाई तक िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न कर सकते है। िक(cid:281)तु अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) म(cid:517) काय(cid:259)रत ऐसे िश(cid:87)णे(cid:485)र कम(cid:259)चारी जो 58 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवा िनवृि(cid:485) का िवक(cid:289)प देते ह(cid:520) को सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के पूव(cid:259) तक िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न की सुिवधा अनुम(cid:281)य होगी। यह (cid:498)व(cid:293)था इस शासनादेश के जारी होने की ितिथ से लागू होगी।" From bare perusal of Rule 11 of the Rules 1981, it is apparent that the benefit of pension and gratuity have been extended to the teachers of aided Higher Secondary School, who retired on or after 1.3.1977 and further it is provided that if a teacher gives an option of retirement on 58 years of age then he is entitled for gratuity. When this Court examines the present case in the light of the provision, it is apparent that vide the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, the date of superannuation was extended from 60 years to 62 years. In this event, age 58 5 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 years on which such employee was entitled for gratuity, is extended to 60 years of age. The fact remains that the petitioner applied on 3.11.2023, i.e., much prior as provided to be applied. The District Inspector of Schools did not consider the aforesaid provision in its right perspective and even the settled law as rendered in Dr. Onkar Nath Katiyar (supra) case has also been ignored. Consequently, the order dated 22.3.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is unsustainable in law and resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2/Deputy Director (Secondary Education), VI Division, Lucknow with a direction to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in the light of Rules 1981 and the settled proposition of law in Writ-A No.28657 of 2014, Dr Onkar Nath Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and four others, decided on
25.10.2017, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Needless to say that if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity, the same shall be paid to her, promptly. The interest part will also be considered by the authority concerned, as per law. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of. October 29, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 22.5.2025 passed by the respondent no.3/District Inspector of Schools on the ground that finding of the impugned order itself is perverse and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner was appointed in primary section of Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Hardoi, vide order dated 4.7.1986 passed by the Manager and, subsequently, she was promoted as L.T. Grade Teacher and thereafter on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The State Government framed rules named as Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahayata Prapt Uchchtar Madhymik Vidyalaya ke Adhyapkon ki Mrityu Tatha Sewa Nrivitti Anutoshik Niyamawali, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1981'), which commenced with effect from 30.6.1978 and the eligibility criterion for getting the gratuity is provided under Rule 11 thereof. Vide Government Order dated 24.6.1983, the State Government provided the facility of voluntary retirement to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Inter Colleges on attaining the age of 45 years or completing 20 years of service. Subsequently, a Government Order was also issued on
6.10.1990, for submitting options within 90 days and thereafter, another Government Order was issued on 17.2.1999 by the State Government 2 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 making provision to the effect that teachers of Government colleges or Government aided colleges may change their date of retirement upto first July of the academic session of their retirement. Thereafter, by the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, age of retirement of teachers of the Inter College was extended from 60 years to 62 years. The petitioner after completion of about 37 years of service submitted an application on 3.11.2023 before the Manager of the Committee of Management of the college concerned and the Committee of Management allowed the application of the petitioner, vide the resolution of the committee, and the petitioner got retired on 31.3.2024. The pension payment order was issued on 22.7.2024 but the payment of gratuity was not done to the petitioner whereafter being aggrieved, the petitioner moved representation and same was not decided. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ A No.2123 of 2025 which was disposed of with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner and in compliance thereof, the order impugned has been passed, which is under challenge. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted her option for retirement on 3.11.2023 and the same is in consonance with the Government Orders, i.e., much prior to first July of the date of retirement. He submits that Rule 11 of the Rules 1981 clearly envisages the provisions regarding payment of gratuity to the teachers of the Inter College and subsequent thereof, Rules 1981 was promulgated and that was given effect to, with effect from 30.6.1978. Further contention is that, vide the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, the age of retirement of teachers of Inter College was extended from 60 years to 62 years and, therefore, the option of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner was much prior to the date as is required to be given. He has also drawn attention towards the order impugned and submitted that the finding is utterly perverse as claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled as per the provisions of Rules 1981 as well as subsequent Government Order dated 4.2.2004, contrary the entitlement of payment of gratuity is provided under Rule 11 of the Rules 1981. Further submission is that it is apparent from the Government Order dated 4.2.2024 that age of superannuation has been fixed as 62 years in place of 60 3 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 years and, therefore, the date of option of voluntary retirement, which has been 3.11.2023, is much prior to 1.7.2025. He submitted that denial on such ground for payment of gratuity is not only unlawful but also against the settled proposition of law. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by this Court in Writ-A No.28657 of 2014, Dr Onkar Nath Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and four others, decided on 25.10.2017 and he has referred para 17 of the aforesaid Judgment, which is quoted as under:- "17. Thus, from the facts and legal position as noted above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity inasmuch he has exercised option for voluntary retirement vide application 01.08.2009 which was accepted by order of the D.I.O.S. dated 24.10.2009. voluntarily retiring him w.e.f. 31.10.2009. The petitioner was to attain the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years on 30.06.2011 and at the age of 62 years on 30.06.2013. Thus, in any case the option for retirement stood exercised by him before one year of the Academic Session in which he was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for gratuity." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgment aforesaid and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity as per the Rules 1981. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not covered under the Rules 1981 and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools has rightly come to the conclusion for not granting gratuity to him. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it emerges that the gratuity to the petitioner has been rejected by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that the benefit of the provisions of Rules 1981 is not available to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance, for payment of gratuity. Rule 11 is extracted as under:- "भाग (ग) सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क आनुतािषक 11 (1) (2)- िवक(cid:289)प प(cid:347) के अनुसार 58 (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की अविध पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने पर। 11(2)- 58 वष(cid:259) (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने का िवक(cid:289)प देने वाले ऐसे अ(cid:280)यापक जो 20 वष(cid:259) की अह(cid:259)कारी सेवा पूरी कर लेते अथवा 45 वष(cid:259) की आयु (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त कर लेने के प(cid:499)ात (cid:293)वे(cid:267)छा से सेवािनवृ(cid:485) 4 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 होना चाह(cid:517)। 11(3) 58 वष(cid:259) (वत(cid:259)मान म(cid:517) 60) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होने का िवक(cid:289)प देने वाले ऐसे अ(cid:280)यापक जो आगे सेवा के िलए (cid:293)थायी (cid:628)प से असमथ(cid:259) होने का (cid:352)माण-प(cid:347) देकर 58 वष(cid:259) की आयु के पूव(cid:259) सेवािनवृ(cid:485) हो। त(cid:277)प(cid:499)ात् शासनादेश सं(cid:263)या- 127/15-8-2004-16-िनयम/2003 टी०सी० िश(cid:87)ा (8) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 04 फरवरी, 2004 म(cid:517) िन(cid:286)नवत् िनद(cid:518)श (cid:352)दान िकये गये है- "शासन (cid:497)ारा स(cid:286)यक िवचारोपरा(cid:281)त अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) म(cid:517) शासन (cid:497)ारा सृिजत पद(cid:523) पर िनयमानुसार काय(cid:259)रत अ(cid:280)यापक(cid:523) की वत(cid:259)मान अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु को 60 वष(cid:259) से ब(cid:238)ाकर 62 वष(cid:259) िकये जाने की सहष(cid:259) (cid:293)वीकृ ित (cid:352)दान करते ह(cid:520)। फल(cid:293)व(cid:628)प 58 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर िमलने वाले सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क लाभ अब 60 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर तथा 60 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर िमलने वाले सेवा नैवृि(cid:485)क लाभ 62 वष(cid:259) की अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पर अनुम(cid:281)य होगे। (cid:361)ी रा(cid:269)यपाल महोदय यह भी आदेश (cid:352)दान करते ह(cid:520) िक जो िश(cid:87)क 01 जुलाई, 2003 के प(cid:499)ात् अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु पूण(cid:259) पर स(cid:347)ांत लाभ कर चल रहे ह(cid:520) उ(cid:281)ह(cid:517) भी अिधवष(cid:259)ता आयु वृि(cid:490) स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)धी लाभ (cid:352)दान िकया जायेगा। उ(cid:472) शासनादेश के िनग(cid:259)त होने पर याची सेवािनवृि(cid:485) की िवक(cid:289)प (cid:498)व(cid:293)था 60/62 वष(cid:259) से आ(cid:267)छािदत हो गए। िजसके अनुसार 60 वष(cid:515)य िवक(cid:289)प का चयन करने वाले िश(cid:87)क को उपादान (गे(cid:267)युटी) का लाभ(cid:352)दान िकया जाने का (cid:352)ािवधान कर िदया गया। शासन/िवभाग (cid:497)ारा बार-बार िनद(cid:518)श िनग(cid:259)त (cid:631)ए िजससे याची (cid:293)वयं िभ(cid:88) थ(cid:514)। िजसके आधार पर इ(cid:281)हे 60 वष(cid:515)य िवक(cid:289)प का चयन करना चािहए था। िक(cid:281)तु इनके (cid:497)ारा 60 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के िवक(cid:289)प का चयन नह(cid:514) िकया गया। संयु(cid:472) सिचव, उ०(cid:352)० शासन के आदेश सं(cid:263)या- 95/15-8-99/3003(78)/90 िव(cid:485) अनुभाग (8) िदनाक 17 फरवरी, 1999 म(cid:517) 60 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)धी शासनादेश म(cid:517) यह (cid:498)व(cid:293)था की गई है- अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) के िश(cid:87)क(cid:523) (cid:497)ारा सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के एक वष(cid:259) पूव(cid:259) अथा(cid:259)त िजस शैि(cid:87)क वष(cid:259) म(cid:517) उनकी सेवािनवृि(cid:485) होगी उसकी जुलाई तक िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न कर सकते है। िक(cid:281)तु अशासकीय सहायता (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त मा(cid:280)यिमक िव(cid:495)ालय(cid:523) म(cid:517) काय(cid:259)रत ऐसे िश(cid:87)णे(cid:485)र कम(cid:259)चारी जो 58 वष(cid:259) की आयु पर सेवा िनवृि(cid:485) का िवक(cid:289)प देते ह(cid:520) को सेवािनवृि(cid:485) के पूव(cid:259) तक िवक(cid:289)प पिरवत(cid:259)न की सुिवधा अनुम(cid:281)य होगी। यह (cid:498)व(cid:293)था इस शासनादेश के जारी होने की ितिथ से लागू होगी।" From bare perusal of Rule 11 of the Rules 1981, it is apparent that the benefit of pension and gratuity have been extended to the teachers of aided Higher Secondary School, who retired on or after 1.3.1977 and further it is provided that if a teacher gives an option of retirement on 58 years of age then he is entitled for gratuity. When this Court examines the present case in the light of the provision, it is apparent that vide the Government Order dated 4.2.2004, the date of superannuation was extended from 60 years to 62 years. In this event, age 58 5 WRIA No. 7778 of 2025 years on which such employee was entitled for gratuity, is extended to 60 years of age. The fact remains that the petitioner applied on 3.11.2023, i.e., much prior as provided to be applied. The District Inspector of Schools did not consider the aforesaid provision in its right perspective and even the settled law as rendered in Dr. Onkar Nath Katiyar (supra) case has also been ignored. Consequently, the order dated 22.3.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 is unsustainable in law and resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2/Deputy Director (Secondary Education), VI Division, Lucknow with a direction to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity in the light of Rules 1981 and the settled proposition of law in Writ-A No.28657 of 2014, Dr Onkar Nath Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. and four others, decided on
25.10.2017, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Needless to say that if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity, the same shall be paid to her, promptly. The interest part will also be considered by the authority concerned, as per law. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of. October 29, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench