Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul), learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
(2.) The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction commanding the respondent authorities to pay the amount of death gratuity of her husband within stipulated time with 18% interest.
(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner apprises to the Court that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 7.11.2019 in Writ-A No.17399 of 2019 (Usha Rani v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and as such similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also. For ready reference, the operative portion of the judgment dated 7.11.2019 is quoted as under:- "..............I have considered the rival submissions raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied upon. Similar issue was considered by this Court in the matter of Noor Jahan (Supra) in which this Court vide order dated 04.01.2018 has clearly held that Government Order dated 16.09.2009 does not provide any bar for payment of gratuity in case petitioner's husband had not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted below:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as under the relevant scheme for payment of gratuity, the claim of petitioner's husband is otherwise covered, and the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 does not curtail the payment of gratuity to those employees, who have died before attaining the age of 60 years. Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4, submits that the denial of gratuity to petitioner is in accordance with the Government Order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record. Government Order dated 16th September, 2009 provides for revision of pension and other retiral benefits to the retired employees of the department of basic education. This Government Order grants higher benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Clause 4(1) of the Government Order provides that pension would not be payable to those employees, who have not completed 10 years of qualifying service, but the employees who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years would be entitled to gratuity and other service benefits. The Government Order does not restrict payment of gratuity to an employee, who is otherwise covered under the scheme just because he has not attained the age of 60 years. Reference to age of 60 years is due to fact that age of superannuation under the rule is otherwise 60 years. Position has otherwise been clarified by Clause 5 of the Government Order, which provides that gratuity would be payable at the age of 60 years or upon death. The respondents, therefore, were not justified in rejecting petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity, in terms of Government Order dated 16.9.2009. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained. Order dated 8.7.2016 is, accordingly, quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to compute the amount payable to petitioner's husband towards gratuity in terms of the scheme and release the same, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the application till the amount is actually disbursed. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed." ;