 Shamli denying payment of gratuity to a teacher due to non-filing of options in case of death-cum-retirement.){kind=link}
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order of the District Inspector of School (DIOS) Shamli denying payment of gratuity to a teacher due to non-filing of options in case of death-cum-retirement.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Mohammad Sahid.
The case of the petitioner is that her mother namely, Smt Amina Begum was appointed as class IV employee in the fifth respondent institution, V.V. Inter College, Shamli, District Shamli on 15.10.1998.
Though she was to superannuate on 15.07.2019 at the age of 44 years, 3 months she expired on 24.01.2004.
The petitioner claimed death-cum-retirement gratuity and when the same was not paid the petitioner preferred writ which came to be disposed of on 16.12.2022 with a direction to the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Shamli to decide the claim of the petitioner.
Now by virtue of the order dated 05.06.2023 the District Inspector of Schools, Shamli has negated the claim of the payment of death-cumretirement gratuity to the petitioner on the premise that the deceased did not exercise her option for being retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.
Questioning the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Shamli, the petitioner has preferred the petition.
The counsel for the writ petitioner while assailing the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Shamli has sought to contend that the premise on the basis whereof the claim of the petitioner has been refused is non-existent as the said issue is no more res integra as the Court in the case of Guru Charan Vs State of U.P decided on 04.08.2022 has already held that death-cum-retirement gratuity cannot be denied on the premise that option has not been exercised by the deceased.
H.K Shukla, Standing Counsel who appears for respondents submitted that he has instructions that he does not propose to file any response and the matter stands covered in pursuance of the judgment of the Court in the case of Guru Charan (supra).
He, however, submitted that the order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authorities to pass a fresh order.
Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the Court allowed the petition and the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the fourth respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Shamli is set aside, the matter stands remitted back to it to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order deciding the entitlement of the petitioner in accordance with law even otherwise and the competing claims, if any, after putting to notice the fifth respondent.