Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Anand Prakash Tiwari And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 12276 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 11578 (17 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12276  of 2004

Anand Prakash Tiwari and others


State of U.P. and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri S.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage itself.

The petitioners seek a direction to the opposite parties  to release the gratuity fund of the petitioner  on the basis of last drawn salary.

It is the case of the petitioners that  they retired  from the respective post on 30.6.2003 after completing the age of 60 years as provided under U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Upon retiring on the said date, the petitioners are entitled for payment of gratuity in view of government order which states that  the teachers of aided institutions would be entitled to gratuity as being paid to the government employees. For making the said claim,  the petitioners filed representation dated 9.1.2004 before the DIOS through proper channel. It is contended that no order has been passed on the said representation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that  they were entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years under the amended  Fundamental Rule 56. However, he submits that the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years and therefore, they are entitled to gratuity fund on the basis of last drawn salary as admissible to the government employees.


Learned Standing Counsel disputes the claim of the petitioners and contends  that they are not entitled to any gratuity  since the petitioners had not opted for the same as required by Government Order dated 10.8.1978.

In view of the aforesaid facts and since the representation of the petitioners have  not yet been decided  it is directed that the DIOS, Firozabad shall take a decision upon the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioner may also file a true copy of the writ petition and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DIOS for better adjudication of the factual controversy.

The writ petition is accordingly  disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.