Allahabad High Court
Girja Shankar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 March, 2021
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1224 of 2021 Petitioner :- Girja Shankar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate states that he has received instructions in the said case.
It would serve no useful purpose to call for a counter affidavit as the petition can be decided on the basis of the averments made in and documents annexed with the writ petition and the contents of the instructions received by Sri Arun Kumar, the counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner the gratuity accruing in favour of his wife who died on 8.5.2019.
The facts as stated in the writ petition are that Archana Singh - wife of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 25.11.2002 and died on 8.5.2019 while still in service. In the service book annexed with the supplementary affidavit, the date of birth of Smt. Archana Singh, i.e., the wife of the petitioner is recorded as 3.10.1975. The petitioner applied for death-cum-gratuity benefit of his wife but the same is being denied on the ground that during her service, the wife of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 58 / 60 years and, therefore, under the relevant Government Orders, she was not entitled to gratuity.
The instructions received by the counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 6 do not dispute the appointment of the wife of the petitioner, her date of birth and her date of death while still in service.
It is evident from the date of birth of the wife of the petitioner that if she had been alive, she would have retired in 2033 / 2035 if she had opted for retirement at the age of 58 / 60 years, as the case may be.
The controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in Writ - A No. 17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others), Noor Jahan Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others (Writ - A No. 40568 of 2016) and Smt. Ranjana Kakkad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008, 10 ADJ, Page 63.
The present writ petition is squarely covered by the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgements.
The writ petition is allowed.
The Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, District Basic Education Officer, District Allahabad and Finance & Account Officer (Basic Education), District Allahabad, i.e., respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 are directed to compute the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity quantified in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and release the amount within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the application for gratuity till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the wife of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 58 / 60 years.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Satyam