Pay widow gratuity: HC to edu institute

The institute had claimed that her husband was overage at the time of his appointment.

Update: 2018-06-17 20:45 GMT
To avoid unnecessary litigation, the government has directed central PSUs to challenge only those cases where policies and larger legal issues are involved, instead of routinely filing writ petitions in high courts against the disputes referred to industrial tribunals for adjudication.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed an educational institute to pay gratuity within three months with a nine per cent interest to a widow whose husband was working with the institute prior to his death. The widow, Sunita Yadav, stated that institute refused to give her gratuity, saying her husband, Rajendraprasad, was overage during his tenure and also rejected her appointment in the institute on compassionate grounds.

The court also directed the joint director (education) to decide her proposal about appointing her on compassionate grounds within three weeks.

A division bench of Justice Shantanu Kemkar and Justice Nitin Sambre was hearing a petition filed by Ms Yadav whose husband was working as a junior clerk with the New Miraj Education Society. After Rajendraprasad’s death, she applied an appointment on a compassionate basis and for family pension and gratuity. While making the payment, a senior accounts officer, however, ordered recovery of '1,01,357 from the gratuity amount payable to Ms Yadav. The institute also had not taken any decision on her job application. Aggrieved, Ms Yadav approached the Bombay high court.

The institute, however, while filing reply to the court, denied Ms Yadav’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and said that at the time of appointment, Rajendraprasad was overage and, therefore, his appointment was illegal.

The petitioner had put forth Supreme Court judgment, which stated that some instances where the employer couldn’t seek recovery of money from an employee in excess of their entitlement.

The court while passing the order in favour of Ms Yadav said, “We find that the petitioner’s husband was appointed and allowed to continue service till his death. After his death, on such a flimsy ground, the recovery cannot be ordered from the gratuity.”

Tags:    

Similar News