Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6049 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Brijesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The controversy raised in this petition stands answered by this Court vide judgment dated 4.1.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.40568 of 2016 (Noor Jahan vs. State of U.P. and others). Operative portion of the judgment dated 4.1.2018 is extracted hereinafter:-
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record.
Government Order dated 16th September, 2009 provides for revision of pension and other retiral benefits to the retired employees of the department of basic education. This Government Order grants higher benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Clause 4(1) of the Government Order provides that pension would not be payable to those employees, who have not completed 10 years of qualifying service, but the employees who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years would be entitled to gratuity and other service benefits. The Government Order does not restrict payment of gratuity to an employee, who is otherwise covered under the scheme just because he has not attained the age of 60 years. Reference to age of 60 years is due to fact that age of superannuation under the rule is otherwise 60 years. Position has otherwise been clarified by Clause 5 of the Government Order, which provides that gratuity would be payable at the age of 60 years or upon death. The respondents, therefore, were not justified in rejecting petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity, in terms of Government Order dated 16.9.2009. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained. Order dated 8.7.2016 is, accordingly, quashed.
A direction is issued to the respondents to compute the amount payable to petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed."
Subsequently, the issue has also been examined by this Court in Writ Petition No.6879 of 2018 (Smt. Omwati vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 9.3.2018. Operative portion of the judgment dated 9.3.2018 reads as under:-
"The only other issue that survives for consideration is whether, the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
This aspect has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No.430 of 2016, Smt. Nazma Khatoon Vs. State of U.P. and others where a learned Single Judge had rejected the prayer for interest on delayed payment of gratuity. However, the Division Bench opined that interest is a necessary corollary to the retention of money by another person. It is neither compensatory nor penal in nature. It was so held, upon an earlier Division Bench decision in Smt. Ranjana Kakkar W/O Late Prof. Amarnath Kakkar Vs. State of Uttar pradesh and others, 2008(10) ADJ 63 (DB).
The Division Bench in Smt. Nazma Khatoon (supra) went on to award 8% interest on the gratuity payable.
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Government order No.SA-3- 1901/10-2002-971/80 dated 30.10.2002, which provides for payment of interest on delay in payment of gratuity and post retiral benefits beyond a period of 3 months from the date they are payable.
Under the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to award the same rate of interest on the delayed payment as has been awarded by the Division Bench in Smt. Nazma Khatoon(supra), the rate being 8%.
For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Sambhal dated 01.01.2018 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the gratuity payable to the petitioner along with 8% interest thereon by a speaking order and to ensure payment of the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is filed before him."
Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition also stands disposed of on same terms. Order impugned dated 1.3.2019 stands quashed. The authority concerned is directed to take a fresh decision keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 9.3.2018.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ashok Kr.