Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1000 (ALL)

Uma Devi Saxena v. State of U. P.

2016-03-17

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The petitioner was a Headmistress in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Babarpur, Block Seetalpur, District Etah. She reached her age of superannuation on 30th June, 2013 and retired. She has instituted this writ petition for the following relief: "A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the claim of petitioner and also pay the amount of gratuity to the petitioner within a stipulated period." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her gratuity has not been paid so far. 3. For redressal of her grievance, the petitioner has made a representation on 20th February, 2015 to the third respondent but no decision has been taken thereon as yet. A copy of the said representation is on the record as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondents. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued upon the District Basic Education Officer, Etah, the third respondent, to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The third respondent shall pay regard to the fact that it is a well-settled law that there should not be any delay in payment of post retiral benefits. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.