RANJANA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Despite stop order passed on 23/5/2023 granting four weeks' and no more time to file counter affidavit, the State has chosen not to file the counter affidavit. The instructions have been produced by the learned Standing Counsel indicating the reasons, as to why, the claim of the gratuity is not being paid to the petitioners. The said instructions are taken on record and the matter is decided finally as the issue hinges upon the interpretation of legal grounds, there being no dispute on facts.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners no.1 and 2 were appointed in the Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur and in the Medical College, Meerut respectively and continued to serve till attaining the age of superannuation, however, the State Government with a view to tide over the requirement of super specialty doctors, issued a Government Order dtd. 6/2/2015 increasing the age of retirement from 60 years to 65 years, a copy whereof has been filed as (Annexure-7) to the writ petition. It appears from the record that on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, the petitioner no.2 applied for voluntary retirement, however, no orders were passed and both the petitioners, in the absence of any order on the voluntary retirement application of petitioner no.2, continued to serve till they attained the age of 65 years. After the retirement, the grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been paid the death-cum-retirement gratuity, to which, they are entitled as well as the benefit of commutation of pension. It bears from record that a doctor similarly placed who was denied the said benefit had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.281 of 2022 (Dr. Suneel Kumar Garg vs State of U.P. and others), which was disposed off, vide order dtd. 10/2/2022, directing the respondents State Government to take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner of Writ-A No.281 of 2022. In response to the said directions, an order came to be passed on 13/12/2022 in respect of the said petitioner of Writ-A No.281 of 2022 denying the benefits of payment of gratuity to him. In the order dtd. 13/12/2022, the reasons recorded for denying the said benefits are contained in paragraph 3 of the said order noticing that it came to the knowledge of the authority that in similar circumstances in respect of the teachers working with Basic Shiksha, Madhyamik Shiksha, High Education and Technical Education where the age of retirement was extended but the gratuity is not being paid to the said persons and drawing parallel from that, the petitioners, whose services were extended from 60 years to 65 years also do not appear to be entitled for payment of gratuity. The said order further records that the petitioners were will within their rights to have opted for voluntary retirement despite knowing their rights, continued to work till 65, thus they were not entitled for gratuity. Based upon the said reasoning, the representation of the petitioner Dr. Suneel Kumar Garg stood rejected.