Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1512/2021 on 1 December, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
01.12.2021
WPSS No. 1512 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Addl. CSC, for
the State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Advocate, holding
brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisth, Advocate,
for the respondents.
The precise case of the petitioner in the
present writ petition is, that after having been
initially appointed with the respondents Jal
Nigam, he has attained the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2019. But, despite due
sanction, having been granted by orders dated
03.08.2019 and 22.05.2020 with regard to the
amount, as payable towards retiral benefits, as it
has been detailed in the relief clause to the writ
petition, which is extracted herein below:-
"Issue, Writ, Order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to release
the outstanding retiral dues/benefits of the petitioner details
whereof is given as under:
A. Leave Encashment (300 days) : Rs. 3,91,310/-
B. Arrears of 7th pay commission: Rs. 33,966/-
C. 3rd A.C.P. Benefit : Rs. 10,606/-
D. Dearness Allowance : Rs 10,854/-
Total Rs. 4,46,736/-
(Rupees Four Lakh Forty Six Thousand Seven
Hundred Thirty Six only)
B. Pass any other writ, order or direction, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
C. Award the cost of the writ petition to the
petitioners."
The learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted, that the nature of relief
claimed by the petitioner, particularly when the
sanction has already been accorded by the
respondents, in fact, there is no legal embargo,
as such, in paying the amount, which has been
determined by the respondents and further he
has made reference to the judgment of the
Division Bench, which was rendered on
30.11.2015, in a bunch of writ petitions with
leading Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015,
Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal
Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, based
on which, this Court too has also rendered a
judgment in a Writ Petition, being Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 73 of 2019, Kailash
Chandra Naudiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and another, as decided on 10.01.2019.
In view of the aforesaid, it is not a
disputed fact, on behalf of the respondents that
the issue does not stand covered by the
aforesaid two judgments. Hence, this writ
petition too would stand disposed of under the
same terms of the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 30.11.2015 and the amount of
retiral benefit as prayed for by the petitioner in
the relief clause would be ensured to be
remitted as per the time schedule provided in
para 5 of the judgment dated 30.11.2015.
Subject to above observations, the writ
petition would stand disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
01.12.2021
Mahinder/
