Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1360 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Rama Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner retired as Head Mistress of Porva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Alampur, Marhara, District Etah. She was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School on 20.05.1987. Her services were regularised on 01.07.1988. She ultimately retired at the age of 60 years after getting sessions benefit on 31.03.2017. While in service the petitioner had exercised her option to retire at the age of 60 years and she in fact superannuated at the age of 60 years. She has annexed her option form which is annexure no.1 to the writ petition. This option form is also counter signed by District Basic Education Officer on 05.09.2015. The District Basic Education Officer, Etah on 19.12.2015 also forwarded the option form. Although all other retiral benefits have been provided to petitioner but the amount of gratuity has not been paid in view of the fact that option form was not forwarded by the competent authority earlier and necessary endorsement in the service book was also not made. Aggrieved by denial of payment of gratuity the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Along with the writ petition petitioner has brought on record the letter of Finance and Account Officer, Basic Shiksha, Etah recommending release of gratuity to the petitioner.
The writ petition was entertained on 25.01.2019 and time was allowed to learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Again time for filing counter affidavit was granted to the respondents on 22.02.2019. The petition has remained pending for more than two years without any counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed it is no longer necessary to keep the matter pending or grant further opportunity to the State to file a counter affidavit.
In some what similar facts and circumstances another Writ Petition filed before this Court No.39431 of 2014 has been allowed vide following orders passed on 30.05.2016:-
"Petitioner has been denied payment of gratuity, on the ground that the option form required to be submitted by him was not submitted one year prior to the alleged retirement or 1.7.2009.
From the scheme, which has been produced before the Court, it appears that gratuity was payable to those teachers, who gave their option to retire at the age of 60 years, and in case such an option was not exercised, the teacher concerned was entitled to continue uptill 62 years. It is not in dispute that petitioner has actually retired at the age of 60 years. It is further not in dispute that petitioner had filed an option form, which was also forwarded by the educational authorities, but according to respondents, there was some delay in making of the option form.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Gadi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2012 (1) ADJ 729, in which following observations have been made:-
"18. From a perusal of the records, it is established that the petitioner retired at the age of 60 years and thus, is entitled for the benefit of gratuity.
19. We, therefore, direct the authority concerned to pay his entire amount of gratuity within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which has been withheld without any valid reason for such a long time.
20. We further direct that the petitioner shall also be entitled to and be paid interest @ 10% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity from the date when it became due, till it is actually paid."
In view of the reasons recorded in the judgment of Division Bench in Suresh Kumar Gadi (supra), this writ petition is also liable to be allowed. Order dated 20th December, 2013 is set aside. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to release the amount of gratuity payable to petitioner, as he has retired at the age of 60 years, and had submitted his option form, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed."
In the facts and circumstances of the present case petitioner has actually retired at the age of 60 years and her option form is on record. For any delay in forwarding of such documents by the officials of the Education Department to the competent authority, the right of the petitioner to receive gratuity cannot be forfeited. A writ of mandamus, accordingly, is issued to the respondents to process petitioner's claim for release of gratuity in terms of the above observations and release the amount in terms of her entitlement within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order together with interest in terms of the applicable scheme.
In light of the above directions this petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021/Abhishek Singh