# Mohammad Sabir v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 665
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17190 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-sabir-v-union-of-india-ors-51733
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Violation of Natural Justice - Petitioner, a
Khalasi/Helper in Railways, challenged his
removal from service for unauthorized absence
(17.12.2007 to 02.09.2008), alleging noncompliance with Rule 9 of the Railway Servants
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Held,
petitioner admitted the charge of unauthorized
absence in his St.ment recorded on 15.06.2009,
negating the need for further inquiry, witness
examination, or cross-examination under Rule 9
- As admitted facts need not be proved, no
violation of natural justice occurred - Tribunal's
dismissal of the petitioner's original application
upheld. (Paras 8, 17, 21, 24)

Service Law - Admission of Charges -
Effect on Inquiry Procedure
- Petitioner
contended that the inquiry officer failed to
follow Rules 9(14), 9(17), 9(22), and 9(25),
including non-examination of witnesses and
non-supply of the inquiry report - Held, the
petitioner's
admission
of
the
charge
of
unauthorized absence in his St.ment dispensed
with the need for further procedural steps, as
per Clause 5 of the charge-sheet format -
Impugned order confirmed supply of the inquiry
report on 08.07.2009, which petitioner did not
specifically deny - No procedural irregularity
found in the inquiry process. (Paras 11, 12, 19,
21, 24)
Service
Law
-
Proportionality
of
Punishment - Habitual Absenteeism -
Petitioner argued that removal from service was
disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized
absence
-
Held,
petitioner's
habitual
absenteeism (319 days in 2005, 44 days in
2006, 67 days in 2007, and 261 days in 200708, totaling over 600 days) justified the
punishment
of
removal
-
Tribunal
and
disciplinary authority's findings, supported by
petitioner's admission and lack of explanation,
warranted no interference - Judgments cited by
petitioner
(U.O.I.
Vs
Dinanath
Shantaram
Karekar, St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
Krushnakant B. Parmar) held inapplicable due to
petitioner's admission of charges. (Paras 22, 24,
25)

Writ Petition Dismissed .

No
Illegality
in
Tribunal's
Order
Dated
05.04.2021.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

3 All. Mohammad Sabir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
665
post ended on completion of period of five
years from the date of registration of his
application,
therefore
the
second
application filed by the petitioner for her
compassionate appointment was not at all
maintainable, as such the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi while rejecting
the petitioner's application vide order dated
08.09.2023
has
not
committed
any
illegality.

19. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 665
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH , J.

Writ A No. 17190 of 2021

Mohammad Sabir ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri Gopal Verma

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Violation of Natural Justice - Petitioner, a
Khalasi/Helper in Railways, challenged his
removal from service for unauthorized absence
(17.12.2007 to 02.09.2008), alleging noncompliance with Rule 9 of the Railway Servants
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Held,
petitioner admitted the charge of unauthorized
absence in his St.ment recorded on 15.06.2009,
negating the need for further inquiry, witness
examination, or cross-examination under Rule 9
- As admitted facts need not be proved, no
violation of natural justice occurred - Tribunal's
dismissal of the petitioner's original application
upheld. (Paras 8, 17, 21, 24)

Service Law - Admission of Charges -
Effect on Inquiry Procedure
- Petitioner
contended that the inquiry officer failed to
follow Rules 9(14), 9(17), 9(22), and 9(25),
including non-examination of witnesses and
non-supply of the inquiry report - Held, the
petitioner's
admission
of
the
charge
of
unauthorized absence in his St.ment dispensed
with the need for further procedural steps, as
per Clause 5 of the charge-sheet format -
Impugned order confirmed supply of the inquiry
report on 08.07.2009, which petitioner did not
specifically deny - No procedural irregularity
found in the inquiry process. (Paras 11, 12, 19,
21, 24)
Service
Law
-
Proportionality
of
Punishment - Habitual Absenteeism -
Petitioner argued that removal from service was
disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized
absence
-
Held,
petitioner's
habitual
absenteeism (319 days in 2005, 44 days in
2006, 67 days in 2007, and 261 days in 200708, totaling over 600 days) justified the
punishment
of
removal
-
Tribunal
and
disciplinary authority's findings, supported by
petitioner's admission and lack of explanation,
warranted no interference - Judgments cited by
petitioner
(U.O.I.
Vs
Dinanath
Shantaram
Karekar, St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
Krushnakant B. Parmar) held inapplicable due to
petitioner's admission of charges. (Paras 22, 24,
25)

Writ Petition Dismissed .

No
Illegality
in
Tribunal's
Order
Dated
05.04.2021.

List of Cases Cited:
1. Hardwari Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors., decided on
27.10.1999

2. U.O.I. Vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC
588

3. Ram Chander Vs U.O.I., (1986) 3 SCC 103

4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Dinanath Shantaram Karekar
& ors., (1998) 7 SCC 569
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, JT 2010 (1)
SC 618

6. Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs U.O.I. & anr.,
(2012) 3 SCC 178

(Delivered by Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal
Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed
aggrieved
by
the
order
of
Central
Administrative Tribunal Bench, Allahabad
dated 05.04.2021 in Original Application
No. 978 of 2010 (Mohammad Sabir Vs.
U.O.I. and Others).

3. The petitioner has filed the original
application assailing the order dated
1.4.2010 of the respondents herein. The
petitioner while working on the post of
Khalasi/Helper
in
Railways,
the
respondents have issued a memorandum of
charge on 11.9.2008 proposing to initiate
major penalty. Consequent on the said
charge, an inquiry officer was appointed
and the date 15.6.2009 was fixed for
inquiry proceedings. On the said date, the
petitioner appeared before the inquiry
officer and the charge memo was read over
to him and his statement was recorded.
Thereafter,
the
inquiry
report
was
submitted by the inquiry officer finding the
petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on
the above, the disciplinary authority have
issued
proceedings
on
30.11.2009,
imposing punishment on the petitioner of
his removal from service.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred a department appeal on
9.12.2009, which was decided by the order
dated 1.4.2010 recording a clear finding
that the petitioner is a habitual of absenting
himself unauthorizedly and he has absented
himself by total number of 801 days
unauthorizedly.
Accordingly,
the
punishment was affirmed. Assailing the
said orders, he preferred the original
application
before
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.

5. The petitioner has raised several
grounds before the Tribunal mainly on the
ground that Rule 9 of the Railway Servants
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') have
not been followed by the inquiry officer
while conducting the inquiry. Though, the
inquiry officer, Mr. Deena Nath Singh was
appointed, but there is no mention as to
who appointed Mr. Deena Nath Singh. No
letter regarding appointment of inquiry
officer was delivered to the petitioner.
Based on the statement recorded on
15.6.2009, the inquiry officer has submitted
the report on 22.6.2009, which is a nonspeaking, vague and cryptic. No witness
was
examined
during
the
inquiry
proceedings. No documentary evidence
was examined and the petitioner was not
provided any opportunity to cross-examine
any witness during the inquiry proceedings.
Finally, the punishment order of removal
from the service is harsh punishment and
disproportionate to the charges leveled
against the petitioner.

6. To support his contention, the
petitioner has relied on the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court in cases of
Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 27.10.1999, Union of
India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 (1)
SCC 588 and Ram Chander Vs. Union of
India, SCC 1986 (3) 103.

7.

Replying
to
the
said
averments/allegations,
the
respondents
3 All. Mohammad Sabir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
667
have filed counter affidavit by denying that
the petitioner has been given proper
opportunity of hearing during the inquiry
proceedings and no violation of principles
of natural justice is done and the petitioner
was given ample time and opportunity to
give reply to the charge-sheet, but he has
not given any reply. Moreover, in his
statement recorded before the inquiry
officer, he has admitted the fact that he has
gone out of station on 16.12.2007 without
informing the senior officers and he had
returned to his duty on 3.9.2008. To support
his contentions, he mainly relied upon the
statement recorded during the inquiry
proceedings. The extracts of which is given
below:

"आरोप- आप दि० 17.12.07 से 02.09.08
तक अन दधकृत रूप से अनुपदथथत रहें इससे यह थपष्ट होत है दक
आपकी रूदच रेल सेव में नहीं है। इस प्रक र आपने रेल सेव आच र
सांदहत 1966 के दनयम-3 के अपदनयम I, II, III के
अदधदनयमों क उल्लांिन दकय है।

1. न म- मो० स दबर

बय न- मैं दिन ांक 16.12.07 को रेथट में िर गय
थ दक िेख दक मेरी पत्नी की तदबयत बहुत खर ब है। उसक
उपच र 14.12.07 से डॉ० ए०के० न र यन क्लीदनक च कधि
ब ि र गय (दबह र) में चल रह है। यह दहदथटररय रोग से ग्रदसत
थी तथ प गलों िैस व्यवह र कर रही थी। मेरे िर में कोई पुरुष
सिथय न होने के क रण मैं उसके उपच र कर ने के ब ि िब वह
31.08 को ठीक हुई तो मैं 03.09.08 को ड्यूटी हेतु आय । मैं
इसकी सूचन करीब अनुभ ग अदभयांत (लोको)/मुगलसर य के प स
दिन ांक 01.06.08 को रदिथटडा पत्र द्व र दिय थ ।"

8. Based on the above facts, the
Tribunal has framed the issue whether the
inquiry proceedings have been vitiated due
to the reason that several provisions of Rule
9 of the Rules, 1968 were not followed by
the inquiry officer as quoted by the
petitioner. Considering the above facts, the
Tribunal has passed the following order:

"16. The applicant He has
also admitted that he had left station
without taking any leave. When he was
asked that he is habitual of becoming
absent unauthorizedly, he admitted this fact
also, but stated that due to illness of his
wife, he has to be absented repeatedly. He
has also admitted the fact that he did not
make any effort to consult any doctor of
Railway hospital for treatment of his wife.
Thus, a perusal of statement of the
applicant clearly shows that he himself has
admitted all the charges levelled against
him.

17. The basic principle of law is
that "facts admitted need not to be proved",
The requirement to prove or examine any
documentary or oral evidence, could have
arisen in case the O.A. No.330/00978/2010
Page 8 of 8 applicant had not admitted the
charges levelled against him. Therefore, if
he was not given any opportunity to cross
examine the witnesses or witness was not
produced, it will not make any difference in
view of his admission.

19. In view of the above, we do
not find any illegality or irregularity in the
enquiry proceedings. The judgments cited
by the learned counsel for applicant are not
applicable in the present case, because in
the present case, the applicant himself has
admitted the allegations that he had left the
station without any leave application and
he had informed the higher officer after 7
months from that. He has also admitted that
he did not consult any doctor from Railway
Hospital and he often use to become absent
unauthorizedly
without
giving
any
information to the higher officer. Although,
he has stated that he has to do all this,
because of illness of his wife."

9. Aggrieved by the abovesaid
order, present writ petition has been filed.

10. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has contended that
the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal contentions raised by the applicant
therein, in fact, he has specifically
contended that the respondents have not
followed Rule 9 (9) (c), Rule 9 (13) (2) (I),
Rule 9 (14), Rule 9 (17), Rule 9 (20), Rule
9 (22) and Rule 9 (25) .

11. As per the above quoted Rules,
more specifically Rule 9(14) of the Rules,
1968 provides for fixing date in inquiry
after one month from the date of
nomination of an assisting railway servant
and Rule 9 (17) provides for examination
of witness and cross-examination by
delinquent employee, but in the instant
case, no witnesses were examined by the
inquiry officer and no opportunity was
given to the petitioner to cross-examine the
witness. Hence, it vitiates the procedure
contemplated in the above said Rules.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on Rule 9 (22). As per above said
rule, an opportunity to delinquent employee
to submit his defence statement after
closing the inquiry proceeding, but in the
instant case, no opportunity was given to
the petitioner. Hence, the punishment order
imposed by the respondents vide order
dated 11.9.2008 and the appellate order
dated
1.4.2010
vitiates
the
rules
contemplated above.

12. More particularly, learned counsel
for the petitioner has vehemently submitted
that after issuing charge memo without
conducting a proper inquiry and giving
opportunity, the inquiry officer has called
the petitioner and recorded statement on
15.6.2009 and based on the said statement,
has submitted his report without supplying
the same to the petitioner, which is contrary
to Rule 9 (22) and Rule 9 (25). According
to the said rule, show cause notice has to be
issued with the inquiry report, has not
followed in the instant case.

13. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court passed
in case of Union of India and Others Vs.
Dinanath
Shantaram
Karekar
and
Others, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases
569 and State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, JT 2010 (1) SC 618. Further, he
relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs.
Union of India and another, (2012) 3
Supreme Court Cases 178. Relevant
paragraph as contained in the case of
Union of India and Others (supra), reads
as follows:

"4. So far as the service of show
cause notice is concerned, it also cannot be
treated to have been served. Service of this
notice was sought to be effected on the
respondent by publication in a newspaper
without making any earlier effort to serve
him personally by tendering the show cause
notice either through the office peon or by
registered post. There is nothing on record
to indicate that the newspaper in which the
show-cause notice was published was a
popular newspaper which as expected to be
read by the public in general or that it had
wide circulation in the area or locality
where the respondent lived. The showcause notice cannot, therefore, in these
circumstances, be held to have been served
on the respondent. In any case, since the
very
initiation
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings was bad for the reason that the
charge sheet was not served, all subsequent
steps and stages, including the issuance of
the show-cause notice would be bad."

14. Relevant paragraph as
contained in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha,, reads as follows:

21. We have noticed at some
length the sequence of events and the
3 All. Mohammad Sabir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
669
efforts made by the respondent to receive
copies of the documents which were
relevant for the preparation of his defence
in the departmental inquiry. As noticed
earlier all the requests made by the
respondent fell on deaf ears. In such
circumstances, the conclusions recorded by
the High Court were fully justified.

27. Apart from the above by
virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India the departmental inquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement of
rules of natural justice that an employee be
given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in any proceeding which may
culminate in a punishment being imposed
on the employee.

28. When a department enquiry is
conducted against the Government servant
it cannot be treated as a casual exercise.
The enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry
officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules
of natural justice are required to be
observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The
object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate
in imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service. In the case
of Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 US
206 (1953) (Jackson J), a judge of the
United States Supreme Court has said
"procedural fairness and regularity are of
the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe
substantive laws can be endured if they are
fairly and impartially applied."

15. Relevant paragraph as
contained in the case of Krushnakant B.
Parmar (supra) reads as follows:

"16. In the case of appellant
referring to unauthorised absence the
disciplinary authority alleged that he failed
to maintain devotion of duty and his
behaviour
was
unbecoming
of
a
Government servant. The question whether
`unauthorised absence from duty' amounts
to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour
unbecoming of a Government servant
cannot be decided without deciding the
question whether absence is wilful or
because of compelling circumstances.

17. If the absence is the result of
compelling circumstances under which it
was not possible to report or perform duty,
such absence can not be held to be wilful.
Absence from duty without any application
or prior permission may amount to
unauthorised absence, but it does not
always mean wilful. There may be different
eventualities due to which an employee
may
abstain
from
duty,
including
compelling
circumstances
beyond
his
control
like
illness,
accident,
hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the
employee cannot be held guilty of failure of
devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming
of a Government servant."

16. According to the above law laid
down by the Apex Court, service of notice
has to be effected on the petitioner, if he is
not available, the same has to be published
in newspaper, but in the instant case,
nothing has established. Hence, as per the
above judgment, the respondents have
failed to issue show cause before imposing
the punishment order.

17. As contended in the instant case,
respondents
have
not
supplied
any
documents which are based for initiation of
the charges against the petitioner, which is
mandatory
as
per
rules
and
above
mentioned judgments of the Apex Court.
The respondents failed to appreciate the
procedure contemplated under the rules.
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hence,
requested
to
set
aside
the
punishment order dated 30.11.2009 and the
appellate order dated 01.04.2010.

18. Replying to the above said
contentions, learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that this fact has brought to the
notice of the Court about the sole charge
framed against the petitioner, which is as
follows:

"आप दिन ाँक 17.12.07 से 02.09.08 तक
अन दधकृत रूप से अनुपदथथत रहे। इससे यह थपष्ट होत है दक
आपकी रूदच रेल सेव में नहीं है।

इस प्रक र आपने रेल सेव आच र सांदहत 1966
के दनयम-3 के उपदनयम I, II, एवां III के अदधदनयमों क
उल्लांिन दकय है।"

19. The above charge has been issued
to the petitioner for unauthorized absence
from duties from 17.12.2007 to 02.09.2008.
Based on the above charge, charge memo
was issued on 11.9.2008. Despite receipt of
the said charge, the petitioner has not
shown any interest to submit his defense or
explanation. As he failed to submit any
explanation, it was incumbent on the
inquiry officer to fix a date for his
appearance in the inquiry. Accordingly,
15.6.2009 was the date fixed for inquiry
and his statement was recorded. The
relevant portion of the statement made by
the petitioner in the report, reads as
follows:

" मेरी पत्नी की तबीयत खर ब होने के क रण मैं
उसक उपच र कर न उदचत समझ । िर में कोई पुरुष सिथय न होने
के क रण उनके प गलों िैस व्यवह र के क रण मैं उधहीं की िेखरेख में लग रह ह ां। दिसकी समय पर सूचन भी नहीं िे प य ।
म नदसक रूप में दवदक्षप्त होने के क रण मैं उनको छो़ि कर नहीं ि
सकत थ । इसके दलए मैं अपने को िोषी नहीं म नत ह ाँ। ि ाँच
च हत ह ाँ। "

20. To support his contention,
learned Standing Counsel has relied on
Clause 4 and 5 of the Standard Form of
Charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on
11.9.2008, which reads as under:

"4. Shri........ is hereby directed
to submit to the undersigned (through
General Manager ..................Railway) a
written statement of his defence (which
should reach the said General Manager)
within ten days of receipt of this
Memorandum, if he does not required to
inspect any documents for the preparation
of this defence, and within ten days after
completion of inspection of documents if he
desires to inspect documents and also---

(a) to state whether he wishes to
be heard in person; and

(b) to furnish the names and
addresses of the Witness, if any, whom he
wishes to call in support of his defence.

5. Shri............. Is informed that
an inquiry will be held only in respect of
those article of charge as are not admitted.
He should, therefore specifically admit or
deny those article of charges. "

21. On perusal of the above said
clauses, it clearly indicates that written
statement of his defence has to be
submitted within ten days of receipt of
memorandum, but in the instant case, even
on perusal of the original application filed
by the petitioner or contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner clearly discloses
that the petitioner has not submitted any
explanation as contemplated in clause 4 of
the charge sheet. Furthermore, clause 5
clearly stipulates that an inquiry will be
held only in respect of those articles of
charge are not admitted. But in the instant
case, sole charge was framed against the
petitioner, which is for continuously
unauthorized absence from 17.12.2007 to
02.09.2008 and the said charge was
admitted by the petitioner in his statement
recorded on 15.6.2009. Hence, once the
charge is admitted, there is no necessity to
3 All. Mohammad Sabir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
671
conduct any further inquiry with regard to
the admitted charges.

22. Apart from the above, on perusal
of the removal order, it is evident that the
petitioner has absented himself from duties
for 319 days in 2005, 44 days in 2006, 67
days in 2007 and 261 days in 2007-08. It
clearly discloses that the petitioner is
habitual
absentee
from
the
duties.
Moreover, in the impugned order clearly
indicates that the inquiry report has been
supplied to the petitioner on 8.7.2009 and
no reply/explanation has been submitted by
the petitioner. Hence, contentions of the
petitioner is not supported by any material,
which is vague and baseless.

23. In view of the above said facts,
learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the respondent authorities
have
followed
due
procedure
as
contemplated under the rules and also the
format given in the articles of charges.
Considering the same, the Tribunal has
rightly dismissed the original application
filed by the petitioner and there is no
ground to interfere with the orders
impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly,
requested for dismissal of the same.

24. Considering the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the record, no doubt the
petitioner has filed the original application
assailing the orders dated 30.11.2009 and
1.4.2010 but there is no averment in the
original application with regard to the
submission of his reply to the charge memo
issued on 11.9.2008 and the inquiry report
has not been supplied to the petitioner
without having any substantial basis and
the averment in the pleadings, learned
counsel for the petitioner has contented that
the respondents have not followed the
Rules, 1968. Bare perusal of the charge
memo and the statement recorded by the
inquiry officer clearly discloses that the
petitioner has admitted the charge, and
once, he has admitted the charge as per the
standard format of charge-sheet, there is no
requirement of further inquiry, but in the
instant case, the fact remains that the
respondents have issued charge memo to
the petitioner, despite receipt of the charge
memo, the petitioner has failed to submit
any explanation within stipulated time.
Hence, left with no option, the respondents
have issued a notice for appearance on
15.6.2009 for inquiry, and accordingly, they
have recorded the statement of the
petitioner. On perusal of the statement
recorded by the inquiry officer, it clearly
discloses that he has accepted the charge
and when once charge is accepted, other
procedure may not be required to the
followed by the authorities. Apart from that
the impugned order clearly discloses that
the respondents have supplied a copy of
inquiry report to the petitioner on 8.7.2009,
but the same was not specifically denied by
the petitioner. Hence, taking the admitted
fact into consideration and the case laws,
which are being relied by the petitioner,
would not be applicable in the instant case.

25. As the petitioner is a habitual
absentee from his duties since 2007-09 and
he was absent about 600 days. In view of
the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal
while taking the facts of the case and case
laws
into
consideration,
has
rightly
dismissed the original application filed by
the petitioner.

26. Hence, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no good
ground to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal.

27. The writ petition lacks merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 17699 of 2023

Smt. Asha Lata Chaubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity -
Entitlement
on
Voluntary
Retirement
-
Petitioner,
an
Assistant
Teacher
in
a
government-aided
Junior
High
School,
challenged the non-payment of gratuity upon
her voluntary retirement at age 59 years, 2
months, and 10 days - Held, the petitioner's
application
for
voluntary
retirement
on
29.06.2021, accepted by the District Basic
Education Officer on 15.01.2022, constituted an
option to retire before age 60, entitling her to
gratuity under Fundamental Rule 56(e) of the
Financial Handbook and Government Order
dated 31.07.2001 - The requirement to submit
an option for retirement at age 60 to receive
gratuity does not apply when a teacher retires
voluntarily before 60, as supported by judicial
precedents
and
Government
Order
dated
03.02.2023. (Paras 8, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27)

Service Law - Gratuity for Teachers Dying
or Retiring Before Age 60 - The respondents
argued that the petitioner was not entitled to
gratuity due to not opting for retirement at age
60 - Held, judgments in Noor Jahan (Writ-A
No. 40568 of 2016) and Usha Rani (Writ-A No.
17399 of 2019), along with Government Order
dated 03.02.2023, clarify that teachers dying
before age 60 without submitting an option for
retirement at 60 are entitled to gratuity - By
extension, a teacher who voluntarily retires
before age 60, as in the petitioner's case,
cannot be denied gratuity, as her voluntary
retirement application is akin to an option to
retire early. (Paras 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

Service Law - Directions for Payment and
Interest - The Court found the denial of
gratuity to the petitioner unjustified - Held, the
respondents are directed to calculate and pay
the petitioner's gratuity based on her length of
service within two months - Additionally, the
District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi, must
pass a reasoned order on the admissibility of
interest for delayed payment within three
months - The applicability of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, was left open as the
petitioner's entitlement was upheld under
existing St. policies. (Paras 27, 28, 29)

Writ Petition Allowed .

Respondents Directed to Pay Gratuity and
Decide on Interest.

List of Cases Cited:
1. Noor Jahan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
40568 of 2016, decided on 04.01.2018

2. Usha Rani Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
17399 of 2019, decided on 07.11.2019

3. Smt. Omwati Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
8679 of 2018, decided on 09.03.2018

4. Smt. Brijesh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
6049 of 2019, decided on 26.04.2019

5. Smt. Mala Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Service Single No. 6173 of 2014, decided on
05.08.2019

6. Renu Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
14397 of 2019, decided on 24.10.2019

7. Smt. Nazma Khatoon Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 430 of 2016

8. Smt. Ranjana Kakkar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2008 (10) ADJ 63 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)