SHEELA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) Present petition has been filed against the order passed by respondent No. 3- Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Bareilly in terms of which the claim of petitioner for gratuity has been rejected on the ground that husband of petitioner has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, therefore, not entitled for gratuity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 30/1/2006 and joined his services. Unfortunately, husband of petitioner died during the course of service on 27/12/2018. After the death of her husband, petitioner applied for terminal dues. She was given all other benefits except gratuity which was refused on the ground that her husband has not filled up option for retirement at the age of 60 years. It is further submitted that as per Government Order dtd. 16/9/2019, petitioner's husband is fully entitled for gratuity even in case if he has not given option for retirement at the age of 60 years, therefore, the order impugned is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as under the relevant scheme of payment of gratuity, the claim of petitioner's husband is covered and the Government Order dtd. 16/9/2019 does not curtail the payment of gratuity to those employees, who have died before attaining the age of 60 years.