Uttarakhand High Court
Bachi Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 975 of 2021
Bachi Singh ........... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos. 1 to 6.
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 01.04.1974, 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 learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. 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.
4. At it, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that
petitioner may be given a liberty to move a representation to
respondent no. 2 within a period of ten days from today, with a further
direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the representation within a given
time, in view of settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2018) 5
SCC 430, which has been consistently followed by this Court in
different judgments.
5. Learned State counsel gives a statement that if such a
representation is given by the petitioner, it would be decided by
respondent no. 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of such representation.
6. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation within ten days from today, with
directions to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation so filed
by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of such representation. 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.)
03.08.2021
Avneet/
