The Supreme Court in the case State of U.P. And Ors. v. Smt. Priyanka observed and has imposed a cost of INR 50,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh for filing of a frivolous appeal which pertains to payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the wife of a deceased professor.
The bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Raganathna in the case observed and has deplored the practice of filing of frivolous appeals before the Apex Court by State Governments.
The bench observed that this court deprecate the practice of a State for filing of such cases before the Apex Court. The court dismissed the appeal by imposing an cost of Rs. 50,000/- which is being payable to the respondent by the appellant within a period of four weeks.
In the present case, one Dr. Vinod Kumar was working as Lecturer in the Government College in Uttar Pradesh. He died in 2009, while in service. The wife of Dr. Vinod Kumar who being the original petitioner applied for the payment of gratuity due to Kumar. Her claim was rejected by the Government wherein stating that while in service, her husband had not opted to retire at 60 years. The said plea was filed before the Allahabad High Court, the court allowed the appeal. It has been directed by the State to compute the amount which is payable to her husband towards gratuity with an interest @ 8% p.a. Therefore, the appeal has been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court by the State.
It has also been noted by the bench that Kumar was born on 1.7.1951; the Kumar would have completed 60 years on 30.06.2011. The Government Order (GO) was issued on 16.09.2009 according to which Kumar could have exercised his option to retire at the age of 60 years, on or before January 7, 2010. Thus, Dr. Vinod Kumar passed away prior to the stipulated period and there being no chance for him to exercise the option enumerated in the 2009 GO.
The court in its order stated that the death- cum-retirement gratuity is the benevolent scheme and the same is extended to the respondent being heirs or the dependent of the deceased employee by the learned Single Judge, as the same is being confirmed by the Division Bench.
Accordingly, the court stated that this court involves no interference.
