Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/749/2021 on 2 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 749 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narian Dutt, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for
respondent No. 2.
The petitioner to the present Writ Petition
has contended that he was appointed with the
respondents as Chaukidar and has retired in the
said capacity on 31st December, 2020.
The grievance raised by the petitioner is to
the effect that even after the attainment of the
age of superannuation, coupled with the fact that
the retiral dues, which has been claimed by the
petitioner, as detailed in para 7 of the Writ
Petition, which is extracted hereunder, has
already been sanctioned by the respondents
amounting to a total amount of Rs.12,65,860/-,
yet the same has not been paid by the
respondents, till dated. The payments due are as
detailed hereunder:-
"A. Gratuity = Rs.5,98,865/- (approx.)
(sanctioned but not paid)
B. Leave Encashment (300 days)=Rs.4,13,010/- (approx)
(sanctioned but not paid)
C. Arrears of 7th Pay Commission = Rs.40,983/- (approx)
w.e.f.01.01.2017 to 30.09.2017)
(sanctioned but not paid)
D. Pay arrears = Rs.82,103/- (approx.)
(Sanctioned but not paid)
E. Exgratia of staff for the year 2019-2020 sanctioned
through Bill No.92/2021 = Rs.6,908/- (approx.)
(Sanctioned but not paid)
F. Dearness Allowance sanctioned through Bill No.
31/2019-20 and Bill No.33/2019-20
Rs.10,140/- (Approx.)
(Sanctioned but not paid)
G. Travelling allowances sanctioned through Bill No.
180/2014-15 and Bill No.151/2015-16
= Rs.10,596/- (Approx.)
(Sanctioned but not paid)
H. Pension from January, 2021 to May, 2021, sanctioned
through Bill No. 12/2021-22
= Rs.1,03,255/- (Approx.)
(Sanctioned but not paid)
Total Amount = Rs.12,65,860/- (Approx.)"
After having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, since there is no controversy with
regard to the entitlement of amount, as it has
been claimed for by the petitioner, coupled with
the fact that the respondents, who are represented
by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, do not
dispute the arguments of the petitioner's Counsel
that the issue stands covered by the judgment of
the Division Bench rendered on 30th November,
2015, as passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.494
of 2015, Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs.
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Avam
Nirman Nigam, which was subsequently
followed by this Court also in Writ Petition
(S/S) No.73 of 2019, Kailash Chandra
Naudiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
another.
Hence, in view of the aforesaid, this Writ
Petition is being disposed of directing the
respondents to remit the amount, which already
stands sanctioned, in terms of the time period as
it has been provided by the Division Bench in its
judgment dated 30th November, 2015.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 02.07.2021
Shiv
