Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/929/2021 on 30 July, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
30.07.2021
WPSS No. 929 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, Addl. CSC, for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, for
the private respondent.
The petitioner to the present writ petition
had contended that he had attained the age of
superannuation on 31.10.2020, and he had retired
from the services of the respondents from the post
of Senior Personal Secretary/Steno.
The grievance of the petitioner is that
despite having attained the age of superannuation
on 31.10.2020, coupled with the fact that the
respondents themselves have recognised their
liability for the payment of gratuity, as well as the
leave encashment, the details of which has been
provided in para 8 of the writ petition, which is
extracted hereunder:-
"8. That the details of petitioner's retiral benefits
which are still outstanding are as follows:-
A. Gratuity Rs. 14,99,999/-
B. Leave Encashment (300 days) Rs. 9,09,090/-
Total Rs. 24,09,089/-"
The further contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents,
vide their correspondence, as referred to in para 4
of the writ petition, i.e. dated 23.10.2020, as well as
dated 16.03.2020, have admitted their liability for
the purposes of remittance of the amount, as it had
claimed by the petitioner towards the retiral
benefits, as detailed in para 8 of the writ petition,
already referred in above para.
It is further not in controversy between
the counsel for the parties to the writ petition; that
the issue stands covered by the directions, which
have been given by the Division Bench of this
Court, in a judgment which was rendered 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, as decided on 30.11.2015, 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, as decided on 10.01.2019.
In these circumstances, where the ratio
has already been settled that where the retiral
benefits has already been sanctioned and reckoned
by the respondents; then it ought to have been
remitted to the retired employee within the
specified time slot, as it has been determined by the
Division Bench's judgment in relation to the
respective dues, payable towards the gratuity and
leave encashment.
Hence, this writ petition is being disposed
of with direction to respondent No. 2, to remit the
gratuity, as well as the leave encashment to the
petitioner as prayed for by him in para 8 of the writ
petition, within the time slot, as it has been fixed by
the Division Bench in para 5 of the said judgment.
Subject to above directions, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.07.2021
Mahinder/
