Allahabad High Court
Suman Rani vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 March, 2021
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11982 of 2020 Petitioner :- Suman Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has received instructions and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court, which is taken on record.
It would serve no useful purpose to ask for a counter affidavit from the respondents as the issue raised in the present writ petition can be decided on the basis of averments made and the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as contents of the instructions received by the Standing Counsel.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.9.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Saharanpur Division, District-Saharanpur and consequently for a writ of mandamus for payment of gratuity due to the husband of the petitioner.
The facts of the case are that one late Shri Subhash Chand Singh, the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Swatantra Bharat Inter College Bhawan Bahadurnagar, District-Bulandshahr on 15.9.1992 and was subsequently promoted as Lecturer in S.S.D. Boys Inter College, Lalkurti, Meerut, where he joined on 5.8.2003. The husband of the petitioner was susequently selected for appointment to the post of Principal and joined as such in Vaidic Inter College Kurmali, Shamli. Shri Subhash Chand, i.e., the husband of the petitioner died on 10.12.2019 while still in service as Principal of Vaidic Inter College. From the service book of Shri Subhash Chand annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, it appears that the date of birth of Shri Subhash Chand was 1.7.1965. On the death of her husband, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Saharanpur Division, District-Saharanpur for release of death-cum-gratuity amount due to husband of the petitioner and on the said application the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) has passed an order asking to petitioner to submit the necessary documents indicating that Shri Subhash Chand had opted retirement at the age of 60 years. The order dated 28.9.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Saharanpur Division, District-Saharanpur has been challenged in the present writ petition.
The instructions received by the Standing Counsel do not dispute the facts regarding the appointment of the husband of the petitioner and his death while still in service as well as his date of birth as given in the service book annexed with the writ petition.
It is evident from the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner that if the husband of the petitioner had been alive, he would have retired in 2025, if he had opted retirement at the age of 60 years.
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 Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Prayagraj Camp Office at Lucknow and the Deputy Director of Education Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 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 husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Order Date :- 16.3.2021 Anurag/-