By the Court.—This Special Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 3.10.2010 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 29571 of 2002 (Smt. Angoori Devi v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed writ petition for the following reliefs :

A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.6.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura.

A writ, order or direction of suitable nature commanding the respondents to forthwith disburse the entire gratuity amount to the petitioner subsequent upon death of Chet Ram Sharma within a period to be specified by this Hon’ble Court alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 24% from 16.6.1998 till the date of actual payment per annum.

3. Petitioner’s husband Chet Ram Sharma was employed as a permanent Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Akrur Inter College, Chhata Mathura, which is a recognized and aided educational institution. He died at the age of 57 years without attaining 58 years of age. After his death, apart from other benefits, the petitioner is also entitled to received gratuity amount due to her deceased husband. However, the respondent authorities did not take any steps for disbursing the said gratuity. On the contrary, the dispute was raised by respondent to the effect that the petitioner’s husband had opted to retire at the age of sixty years. According to the Government Order, the petitioner was not entitled to any gratuity and he could have received gratuity only in case if he had opted to retire at the age of fifty eight years. In fact that the petitioner’s husband Sri Chet Ram Sharma submitted a form in which he gave an option to retire at the age of sixty years, which was dated 31.12.1990. The aforesaid option form after submission was to be accepted by the authorities. However, before its acceptance, the husband of the petitioner submitted another option form dated 2.1.2091 opting to retire at the age of 58 years. As stated earlier, the petitioner husband has died at the age of 57 years before attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. After his death, the petitioner repeatedly pursued the case of grant of death cum retirement gratuity on account of death of Chet Ram before higher authorities. She also moved a representation in this regard and later on received a communication from the higher authorities that she is not entitled to receive gratuity amount due to her husband.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed.

5. After exchange of the counter-affidavit and supplementary affidavit, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition vide his order dated 3.10.2006.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed this Special Appeal.

7. During hearing of the Special Appeal, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the appellant.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits :

Because the learned Single Judge has erred in making observations in the impugned order, which are not substantive from any record of the writ petition, the counsel has drawn our attention to the specific para of the order which contains that the petitioner and her family have received all the benefits due to her late husband as he was to retire at the age of 58 years. The counsel for the petitioner specifically submitted that she has filed supplementary affidavit in which it is clearly mentioned that she and her family have not received any extra benefit.

The counsel further submitted that the Single Judge has unnecessarily criticized the handwriting of the option form submitted by the appellant’s husband. It was not at all mandatory for the appellant’s husband to fill up the option form in his own handwriting. Even if the handwriting was different it was not challenged by the respondent authorities.

He further submitted that the first option form was submitted on 31.12.1990 and immediately after thre