Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1604/2021 on 16 December, 2021
Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL.
Date proceedings or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with Signatures
16.12.2021
WPSS No. 1604 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rajesh S. Nagarkoti, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Prem Kaushal, Advocate, for the
respondent(s).
The petitioner, to the present writ petition,
has come up with the case, that he, after having worked
with the respondents, had attained the age of
superannuation on 31st July 2020, having retired from
the post of Senior Clerk.
The grievance of the petitioner is, that as per
the tenure of services, which had been rendered by him
with the respondents, he would be entitled for the
remittance of the gratuity amount, which has been
assessed to be as Rs. 14,23,980/-, as would be apparent
from the determination, which has been made by the
respondents, in the sanction letter, which has been
granted by them on 16th September 2020.
Similarly, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits, that, by a corresponding sanction of
the like date, which was granted on 16th September
2020, it was determined by the respondents, that the
petitioner would be entitled for the payment of leave
encashment too for 300 days; but, despite the relevant
sanction, having been granted, the petitioner had been
still deprived of the same and hence the action of the
respondents is violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300A of
Constitution of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that if the provisions of Section 4, to be read
with Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, itself is
taken into consideration, it rather casts a mandate on
the employer, that on the attainment of the age of
superannuation, it is the duty of the employer to ensure
the remittance of retiral benefits i.e. particularly
pertaining to the gratuity amount within the period, as
specified therein under the Central Statute itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
contends, that ever since the attainment of the age of
superannuation of the petitioner on 31st July 2020, the
petitioner had been consistently corresponding with
them for the remittance of the retiral benefits; but, the
same has not been remitted to the petitioner, hence the
writ petition.
Though, in relation to other department,
almost an identical issue with regard to the non
remittance of retiral benefits, had came up for
consideration before the Division Bench of this Court
and the Division Bench of this Court had accordingly,
vide its judgement dated 30th May 2015, as rendered in
a bunch of writ petitions with leading writ petition,
being WPSB No. 494 of 2015, Lalita Prasad Tewari
Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam
Nirman Nigam had laid down certain stipulations for
the time period, within which the amount of retiral
benefits, under the different head as claimed by an
employee, is to be remitted.
The fact that the issue covered by the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, is not
disputed by the respondent's counsel
Accordingly, the present writ petition too
would stand disposed of under the terms of the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 30th November
2015, and the respondents are directed to ensure the
remittance of gratuity amount to the petitioner along
with the interests, payable on it under Section 7(3A) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act, within a period of three
months from the date of production of the certified
copy of this order, as well as the amount of leave
encashment as sanctioned on 16th September 2020,
within a period of two months from, thereafter the date
of production of the certified copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, and
particularly based on the ratio which had been laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court on 30th
November 2015, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Mahinder/
16.12.2021
