Allahabad High Court
Aftab Jahan vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 25 March, 2021
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11480 of 2020 Petitioner :- Aftab Jahan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by the counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
In pursuance to the previous order passed by this Court, Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh on behalf of respondent nos.4, 5 & 6 has received instructions, a copy of which has been handed over to the Court and is taken on record.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh representing the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner the gratuity amount due to her husband along with reasonable interest.
The facts of the case are that Shri Samim Ahmad, the husband of the petitioner, was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Junior Basic Education) on 20.3.1995 and was later promoted as Assistant Teacher Upper Primary School (Senior Basic Education) and died on 13.11.2008 while still in service. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner was 2.10.1952 and the photocopy of the High School certificate of the husband of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit in support of the said averment.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh on the basis of instructions received by him, states that the petitioner can not be given the gratuity amount claimed by her as the husband of the petitioner while still in service had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
It is evident from the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner that if he had been alive, he would have retired in 2012, if he had opted for 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 District Basic Education Officer, District Kanpur Dehat, i.e., respondent no. 5 and Finance and Account officer, (Basic Education) District Kanpur Dehat i.e., respondent no.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 husband of the petitioner had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021 IB