Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5357 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shahida
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Kumar Kesherwani
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.4, 5 & 6.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:-
"(a). Issue a writ order or issuing a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Respondent No.5, by which the amount of gratuity claimed by petitioner of her husband has been refused to pay.
(b). Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay the amount of death-cum retirement gratuity to the petitioner with interest 18% per annum at earliest.
(c). Issue, any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to which the petitioner may found entitle in law.
(d). Allow this writ petition and award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
Husband of the petitioner Mohd. Akbar was working as Headmaster at Primary School, Munsiyan, Nagar Kshetra, District-Saharanpur and died on 18.03.2004 during the service period. The respondent-authority by order dated 17.03.2021 has denied the gratuity to petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner had not opted for payment of gratuity during the service period, and therefore, she is not eligible for gratuity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the aforesaid order has submitted that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others), and therefore, the ground stated in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of petitioner for release of gratuity is illegal and being in teeth of the judgement of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out from the record that the controversy in hand is not covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra), in fact he fairly conceded that the controversy in hand is covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra).
Since, the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra), therefore, the impugned order dated 17.03.2021, annexure 1 to the writ petition, is quashed and writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgement of this Court in the case of Usha Rani (supra).
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Sattyarth