STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus SMT. PRIYANKA

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 09-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
385
385
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
V.
SMT. PRIYANKA
(Civil Appeal No. 3639 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Death-cum-Retirement gratuity – Payment of –
To heirs/dependent of deceased employee, when employee died
before he could exercise the option of retirement – Respondent-
wife of deceased employee applied for payment of gratuity due to
her husband, but the same was rejected on ground that he had not
opted for retirement at the age of 60 years – Writ proceedings –
High Court held that respondent would be entitled to the benefit of
Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and to the benefit of death-
cum-retirement gratuity being heir of the deceased employee –
Justification of – Held: Justified – Respondent’s husband would
have completed 60 years of his age on 30.06.2011 – As per
Government Order dated 16.09.2009, he would have exercised his
option to retire at the age of 60 years on or before 1.7.2010 –
However, before he could exercise the option, he died – In fact, he
had died even prior to the Government order – He had died on
11.08.2009 whereas the Government order is dated 16.9.2009 –
Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all
– Death-cum-retirement gratuity is a benevolent scheme and the
same was extended by the High Court to the respondent she being
heir/ dependent of the deceased employee – No interference called
for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3639
Of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in SPLA No.343 of 2021.
Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Gaurav Dhama, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj, Sachin Mittal, Advs. for the Respondent.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 385
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special
Appeal No. 343 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants – State of
U.P. and Ors. to pay the gratuity to the original writ petitioner on the
death of the deceased employee (her husband), the State of U.P. and
Ors. have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That the deceased employee Dr. Vinod Kumar, husband of
the original writ petitioner, was working as Lecturer. He joined service
on 02.07.2001 and died on 11.08.2009 while in service. The original writ
petitioner - wife of the deceased employee applied for payment of
gratuity due to her husband, but the same was rejected on the ground
that the husband of the petitioner, while in service, had not opted for
retirement at the age of 60 years. The original writ petitioner therefore
filed the writ appeal before the High Court being Writ Appeal No. 2211
of 2021.
2.2 Relying upon and following the earlier decisions of the High
Court and by observing that if the deceased employee would have been
alive, he would have retired in 2026, if he had opted for retirement at the
age of 60 years and before he could opt for retirement at the age of 60
years, he died, therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
and directed the appellants to compute the amount payable to her husband
towards gratuity quantified in accordance with the relevant Government
orders with the interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the application
for gratuity till the amount is actually disbursed, ignoring the fact that the
husband of the original writ petitioner had not opted for retirement at the
age of 60 years.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the writ
appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeal, hence the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
387
3. Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in directing
the appellants to pay gratuity to the original writ petitioner on the death
of the deceased employee.
3.1 It is submitted that the High Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.