Gajendra Giri v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17963 of 2023 Petitioner :- Gajendra Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Dwivedi,Mrityunjay Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶2Petitioner, who is father of late Shalu Giri claims family pension on account of his married daughter dying in harness on

02.06.2020.

¶3The plea taken is that the daughter died within two months of her marriage and even though his son in law was an employed person but the petitioner was solely dependent upon the married daughter having no other independent source of income. He claims that his daughter came into employment as a Constable in Civil Police on 31.05.2019. He does not dispute that he is having a minor son and also another unmarried employed daughter. The other daughter namely Sapna also working as Constable in Civil Police. He, therefore, submits that his claim for terminal dues is valid enough, more especially in the circumstances when his own son in law has given an affidavit in his favour.

¶4Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submits that the petitioner being not solely dependent upon the married daughter as he is already having an unmarried daughter who is employed as Constable in Civil Police, cannot claim to be dependent upon the married daughter who has passed away. Learned Standing Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 23.12.2016 which entitles the parents of the employees to terminal benefits provided the employee is not survived by widow or widower or issues, as the case may be.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, the issue I find needed to be addressed is, whether a mandamus can be issued in the matter where the entitlement of terminal dues to the petitioner is questioned. The settled legal principle is and so the rule for issuance of writ of mandamus is that an authority must be under obligation to discharge a certain duty under a statute and fails to do so.

¶6In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the Government Order placed before me (annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition), I find the contention and argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to be holding merit as to the gratuity of the deceased daughter.

¶7It is further noticeable that as per the Government Order dated

28.07.1989 in the case of death of an employee the gratuity is to be paid as per the nomination to the members of the family. Clause 2 of the Circular letter dated 11.01.2022 that notices the Government Order is reproduced hereunder: "2-

उपररकसमबनधममअवगतकररनरहहकक,

(1)

शरसनरददश ससखयर: 38/2016-सर-3-921 /दस-2016/308/2016 कदनरसक

23.12.2016

कदपसतर-7 (4)

नईपरररवरररकपमशनयरजनर-1965

ममयहपरकवधरनकदयर

गयरहहकक, वगर-1 (क)

कवधवर/ कवधधर,

आजनमअथवरपधनकवरवरह,

जरभभपहलदहर,

(ख)

पधत/

पधतभ(

कवधवरपधतभसकहत)

करकववरह/

पधनकवरवरहअथवर25

वररककआयधतक

अथवरजभकवकरपरजरनकककतथथ,

जरभभपहलदहर,

तक।वगर-2 (च)

अकववरकहत/

कवधवर/

तलरकशधदरपधतभ,

जरउपररकवगर-1

सदआचछरकदतनहहहह,

करकववरह/

पधनकवरवरहतक

अथवरजभकवकरपरजरनकककतथथअथवरममतयधकककतथथतक,

जरभभपहलदहर।

(छ)

ऐसदमरतरकपतरजरसरकररभसदवकपरउसकदजभवनकरलममपपररततआथशतरहद, हहतथर

ममतसरकररभसदवककदपभछदकरईकवधवर/

कवधधरअथवरबचचदनहर।आथशतमरतर-कपतर अकववरकहत/

तलरकशधदर/

कवधवरपधतभककपरररवरररकपमशनजभवनपयरनतकमलदगभ। वगर-2

सदआचछरकदतअकववरकहत/ कवधवर/

तलरकशधदरपधतभतथरअथशतमरतरकपतरकर

परररवरररकपमशनककअनधमनयतरउसभदशरममहरगभजबममतककदपररवररममपरतउपलबध

नहहहहतथरममतकसरकररभसदवककदपररवररउसदऐसभकरईससतरननहहहहजरकवकलरसगहर।

परररवरररकपमशनककअनधमनयतरबचचहममउनककजनमकतथथकदकमममहरगभअथररततपहलद

जनमथलयदबचचदकरअनधमनयतरपहलदहरगभऔरउसककपरततरसमरपहरनदकदउपररनतबरद

ममजनमलदनदवरलदबचचमककपरततरसथरकपतहरगभ।

(2)

शरसनरददशससखयरतसर

-3/1713 /

दस -89-933/89

कदनरसक

28.07.1989

कदपसतर

- 8 ( ख )

ममयहपरकवधरनकदयरगयरहहकक

,

यकदसरकररभसदवकदरररगदचयपटभहदतधनरमभनदशन

करकदयरगयरहरतरऐसभअनननतमममतयधगदचयधटभनरकमनदशनकदअनधसररहभपररवररकद

सदसयहममकवतररतककजरयदगभ

ककनतधयकदसमबननधतसरकररभसदवकनदनरमभनदशननहह

ककयरहहतरममतयधगदचयधटभकरभधगतरनकनमनवततककयरजरयदगर:-1-

यकदपररवररकदकनमनसदसयहममसदएकअथवरअथधकसदसयजभकवतहहतरउनमम

समबननधमधनररकशकरबररबर-

बररबरकवतररतकरकदयरजरयदगर:-

(अ)

पतनभ(

पधररकमरचररभकदमरमलदमम)

(ब)

पकत(

मकहलरकमरचररभकदमरमलदमम)

(स)

पधत(

ससतदलभससतरनहतथरगरदलभहहईससतरनहकरसनममथलतकरतदहहए)

(द)

अकववरकहतपधकतयह(

ससतदलभससतरनहतथरगरदलभहहईससतरनहकरसनममथलतकरतद 2-

यकदउपरथलथखतउपखणडकदअनतगरतउकलथखतपररवररकरकरईसदसयनहरऔर

यकदकनममसदसयजभकवतहहतरममतयधगदचयधटभइनममबररबर-

बररबरबरसटभजरयदगभ:-

(1)

कवधवरपधकतयरय

(2) 18

वररसदकमआयधवरलदभरईतथरअकववरकहतएवसकवधवरबहनम(

ससतदलदभरईवबहन

करसनममथलतकरतदहहए)

(3) कपतर

(4) मरतर

(5)

कववरकहतपधकतयरय(

ससतदलभपधकतयहकरसनममथलतकरतदहहए) तथर

(6)

पपवरममतकपधतककससतरनद।" (emphasis added)

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his daughter Shalini Giri had nominated her parents in the service records and this has been acknowledged by the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya in the order dated 03.09.2020. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya dated 03.09.2020 is reproduced hereunder: करयररलय पधथलस अधभ्ቌक, जनपद औरहयर। पत ससखयरतप-25/2020 कदननॉकतथसतमबर3,2020 सदवर मम, शरखर पबनधक, भररतभय सटदट बबक मधखय शरखर, औरहयर। कमपयर अवगत कररनर हह, कक कध० शरलपकगरभ पधतभ शभ गजदन्ቖ कगरर कन० लतभफपधर द्ቈ नगर थरनर बरलहनभ जनपद बरगपत कर मकहलर आर्ቌभ पधथलस कद पद पर जनपद औरहयर मम कदननॉक

17.05.2019 कर भतቔኍ हहई थभ। थजसकर खरतर ससखयरत38489430865 आपकक शरखर मम पचथलत हह। परररवरररक समसयरओस कद कररर उक मकहलर आर्ቌभ दररर कदननॉक

02.06.2020 कर थरनर कवधपनर जनपद औरहयर मद कनयधकक कद दसररन आतमहतयर कर लभ गयभ हह। खरतर खधलवरतद समय फरमर मम उसनद नरकमनभ करलम मम अपनभ मरतर यर कपतर कर नरम आवश्यक असककत ककयर थर। वतरमरन मम उक खरतद मम पडभ धनररकश कर ममतक मकहलर आर्ቌभ कद आथशत मरतर-कपतर कर भधगतरन ककयद जरनद कवरयक हह। अकभलदखरनधसरर कध० शरलपकगरभ कक जनमकतथथ 16.03.1998 असककत हह। अतत सव० मकहलर आर्ቌभ कध० शरलपकगरभ पधतभ शभ गजदन्ቖ कगरर कन० उपररक कद खरतर ससखयर कद मपलफरमर कक जनॉच कररतद हहयद उक खरतद मम जमर धनररकश कर उनकद आथशत मरतर-कपतर कद प्ቌ मम भधगतरन कररनद कर क्ቖ करम। ह० अप० 3/09/20 ( सधनभकत) पधथलस अधभ्ቌक, औरहयर। (emphasis added)

¶9There is no pleading in the writ petition that the gratuity amount as was directed to be paid to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Auraiya in his order addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Auraiya has not been released in his favour.

¶10In view of the above, I do not find any justification for any direction to be issued for any terminal dues to be paid to the petitioner in the light of Government Order dated 23.12.2016. In so far as the payment of gratuity amount is concerned, whatever is there in the gratuity account must have been paid to the petitioner in the light of the order passed by Superintendent of Police way back on 03.09.2020 under the Government Order dated

28.07.1989. Hence, I decline to entertain this petition to issue any direction for payment of terminal dues. However, it is clarified that in the event the gratuity amount has remained unpaid despite the order of Superintendent of Police, Auraiya dated 03.09.2020, the same shall be credited into the account of present petitioner and his wife without any further delay.

¶11Subject to what has been observed above, this petition is consigned to records. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 IrfanUddin High Court of Judicature at Allahabad