Ram Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1631 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                   CWP No. 1818 of 2020




                                                                       .
                                                   Decided on: 04.03.2021.





      Ram Prakash                                                  ....Petitioner.

                    Versus





      State of Himachal Pradesh and another                        ...Respondents.
      Coram
      The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
      Whether approved for reporting?1 No





      For the petitioner    :    M/s Suman Thakur and Ravinder S.
                                 Thakur, Advocates.

      For the respondents          :       M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur
                                           and Sanjeev Sood, Additional
                    r                      Advocate General with M/s Kamal

                                           Kant Chandel and Divya Sood,
                                           Deputy Advocate Generals for
                                           respondent No. 1.

                                   :       Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate vice Mr.


                                           Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for
                                           respondent No. 2.
      Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

for the following substantive reliefs:-

"(i) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be

issued to the respondents to release the gratuity

amount along with interest.

(ii) That the respondents are directed to pay back

the amount which has been recovered by the

respondents from his pension."

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Mr. Ajay Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2

while drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment dated

.

15.12.2017, passed by this Court in CWP No. 6860 of 2011, titled

as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. and others, as well as

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent

Appeal, i.e. LPA No. 8 of 2018, titled as Manoj Kumar and others

vs. State of H.P. and others, has submitted that the present writ

petition is not maintainable as the same is hit by the principle of

res-judicata and constructive resjudicata.

3. Ms. Suman Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is only raising grievance with regard to

non-payment of gratuity in his favour, which otherwise stands

released in favour of persons similarly situated and which has

been denied to the petitioner simply because of pendency of Letters

Patent Appeal (supra).

4. Be that as it may, this petition is ordered to be closed

but with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue of purported

non-payment of gratuity by way of a representation. In the event of

any such issue being raised by the petitioner within a period of two

weeks from today, appropriate orders upon the same be passed by

the competent authority within a period of four weeks as from the

date of receipt of the representation.

5. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any

opinion as to whether the petitioner is in fact entitled for gratuity

.

or not.

6. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

                                               (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    March 04, 2021                                      Judge





         (narender)