CITATION:
SLP (C ) No. 1595 of 2022
CASE TITLE:
State of U.P v. Smt. Priyanka
DATE OF ORDER:
9 February, 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice M.R Shah
Justice B.V. Nagarathna
SUBJECT
The learned Supreme Court in the present case held that when the deceased had no any chance to exercise the option to retire at the age of 60 years as the government order requiring such exercise was passed after his death, his dependent/heirs can not be held to not be entitled to the death-cum-retirement gratuity.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- Dr. Vinod Kumar, husband of the respondent had dies while in service on 11.08.2009. He was a lecturer in a government institution.
- The respondent (original petitioner) had applied for payment of gratuity that she, as the heir of the deceased, would be entitled to.
- Her claim was, however, rejected by the the Trial Court that the deceased had not opted for the retirement at the age of 60 years.
- On an appeal against the same, the High Court set aside order passed and ruled in the favour of the original petitioner (respondent).
- The State was directed to pay the amount of gratuity along with an interest of 8% p.a from the date of application till the date the gratuity amount is actually disbursed to the the wife of the deceased.
- Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred the present appeal before the Apex Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court has erroneously reached its decision by ignoring the fact that the deceased had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years, while he was in service.
- It was submitted that as per the order of the government, to avail the benefit of gratuity after death, exercising one’s option to opt for the same was an essential requisite.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court has not erred in granting the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the respondent on the death of her husband.
LEGAL ISSUE
Whether the deceased, who failed to exercise his option to opt for retirement at the age of 60 years, is entitled to the gratuity amount or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- While adjudicating upon the matter, the Court observed that the government order by which the deceased was required to opt for retirement at 60 was passed on 16.09.2009. The deceased had the option to exercise it by 1.7.2010.
- However, unfortunately he died on 11.08.2009
- The Court held that since the government order was itself passed after his death, there was not really any chance for him to exercise the said option.
- The Court opined that the death-cum-retirement gratuity being a benevolent scheme, the same shall be extended to the respondent being his heir/dependent of the deceased employee.
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observations made, the learned Court concluded that the appeal in consideration shall be dismissed. While condemning the practice of State of filing such cases before the Apex Court, the Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the State and directed it to pay it to the respondent within 4 weeks.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
