Diwan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2742 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Writ Petition (S/S) No. 960 of 2021

Diwan Singh                                                  ........... Petitioner

                                          Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                             ........ Respondents


Present : Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent
          nos. 1 to 5.



                                    JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recomputed and release amount the Gratuity in favour of the petitioner under the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972, after taking into the consideration, the services rendered by the petitioner on a daily wages basis since 01.04.1978, up to his date of superannuation on the basis of last drawn salary.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent department to award statutory interest, as payable under section 7(3)(A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(iii) Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

2. Heard.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that having served with the respondents, he retired in the year 2017, but he has not been paid the gratuity, which was due to him.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the instant petition should be entertained in view of the availability of alternate efficacious

remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5. At it, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that directions may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure No. 09 to the writ petition).

7. Learned State counsel gives a statement that the representation dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure No. 09 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner would be decided by the respondent concerned within a period of two months from today.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent concerned to decide the representation dated 20.01.2021 (Annexure No. 09 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, in accordance with law. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.08.2021 Avneet/