Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, Advocate representing the respondent nos. 4 to 6, i.e., the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad, District Basic Education Officer, District Saharanpur and the Finance & Account Officer, Basic Education, Saharanpur.
Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, 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 is being decided on the basis of the contents of the impugned order itself.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, i.e., respondent no. 5 refusing to release the gratuity amount to the petitioner due to the wife of the petitioner.
The facts as stated in the writ petition are that Anu Gupta - wife of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 19.11.1999 and died on 10.12.2007 while still in service. The petitioner has annexed the high-school copy of Anu Gupta as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit which shows that the date of birth of Smt. Anu Gupta was 7.1.1970. The petitioner applied for the death-cum-gratuity benefit of his wife but the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.10.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer 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. No other ground has been stated in the impugned order. The impugned order does not dispute the date of birth of the wife of the petitioner, her appointment as Assistant Teacher and her death on 10.12.2007 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 2028 / 2030 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 District Basic Education Officer, District Saharanpur and the Finance & Account Officer, Basic Education, Saharanpur, i.e., respondent nos. 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 :- 22.2.2021 Satyam