Allahabad High Court
MEENA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The order dated 05.08.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for interest on gratuity is set aside and the matter is remitted for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Summary
Meena Devi filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 05.08.2026 of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad, which rejected her representation for payment of interest on death gratuity without providing reasons. The petitioner’s husband, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 21.01.2012 and she had received the gratuity amount in April 2023 but no interest. Earlier writ petitions in 2023 had resulted in directions for the authorities to decide her claim, yet the interest remained unpaid. The High Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary, violative of natural justice and therefore set it aside. The matter was remitted to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the claim afresh, issue a reasoned order and, if appropriate, direct payment of interest within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari rejecting the petitioner’s representation for interest on death gratuity without reasons is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on death gratuity from the date of entitlement under the applicable statutory or rule framework.
- Whether the High Court can issue mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest and to decide the representation within a stipulated period.
Subjects
- gratuity
- interest
- death gratuity
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- natural justice
- administrative law
- Uttar Pradesh
- District Basic Education Officer
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15987 of 2026
Meena Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Shyam Lal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Mohit Dixit, learned
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel
for respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"a) Issue order directions nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated
05.08.2026 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Farrukhabad vide letter No.
Basic/ Court/Nistaran/41199-26/2026-27 dated 05.08.2026 by which rejected the
representation of the petitioner for payment of interest on gratuity amount from
24.01.2012 to 20.02.2023 and 27.04.2023 to till the actual payment.
b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to direct the
respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the interest on gratuity amount from the date of death of
her husband i.e, on 24.01.2012 to 20.02.2023 and 27.04.2023 to till the date of actual
payment in the account of the petitioner alongwith the interest as notified by the
government time to time, within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.
c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to direct the
respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2026 within
stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
………….."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has
WRIA No. 15987 of 2026
2
approached this Court by means of filing Writ-A No.2928 of 2023
(Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others) with the prayer that the
petitioner whose husband died-in-harness on 21.01.2012 while serving as
Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School was entitled for all
retiral/death dues, however, all dues except for death/retirement gratuity
were paid to the petitioner. He further submits that for payment of
death/retirement gratuity, the petitioner had moved a representation,
which was not considered, therefore, a direction was issued vide order
dated 21.02.2023 to the concerned District Basic Education Officer to
decide the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of death/retirement
gratuity in the aforesaid writ petition. He also contends that in compliance
of the aforesaid, though, death/retirement gratuity was paid to the
petitioner on 26.04.2023, however, the interest from the date of
entitlement was not paid to the petitioner, therefore, Writ-A No.20056 of
2023 (Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others) was filed by her,
which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondents to
look into the grievance of the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid,
the order impugned has been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner
without passing any reasoned order, hence the same is arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 could not dispute the
aforesaid fact.
5. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 05.08.2026 is set aside.
6. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.3-District Basic Education
Officer, District-Farrukhabad for decision afresh, on merits, strictly in
accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after
giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of production of certified
copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
7. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made
above.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 30, 2026
K.N.
Digitally signed by :-
KALP NATH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…