Pushpa Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 558 UK

       THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                       Writ Petition (S/S) No. 358 of 2021

Pushpa Devi                                                             ....... Petitioner

                                             Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & another
                                                                       ......Respondents


Present: Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. M.C. Tewari, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent no.1.
          Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.2.


                                            Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the

following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding the Respondents to forthwith release the

outstanding retiral benefits to the petitioner, details whereof is

given herein below:-

A) Leave Encashment (300 days) = Rs.4,01,310/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

B) Gratuity =Rs.4,71,539/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

C) Arrears of 7th Pay Commission

(w.e.f. 01-01-2017 to 30-09-2017) = Rs.40,011/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

D) Dearness Allowances through Bill No.16/17-18 of

Rs. 812/-, Bill No.44/17-18 of Rs.928/-, Bill No.103/17-18

of Rs.915/-, Bill No.139/18-19 of Rs.628/- and through Bill

No.73/18-19 of Rs.628/-.

=Rs.3,911/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

E) Bonus sanction through Bill No.92/2021

= Rs.6,908/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

F) Remaining arrears of Grade Pay 1800 sanctioned through

Bill No.69/16-17 =Rs.3,482/- (approx.)

(sanctioned but not paid)

Total Amount = Rs.9,27,161/- (Approx.)

(ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the

petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that

the department admits the claim of the petitioner but due to paucity of

funds, department needs some time to make payment. It is also

submitted that the case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated

30.11.2015 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015 and

connected matters.

4. In view of the submission made, the writ petition stands

disposed of in terms of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed in Writ

Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015 and connected matters, by this Court.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.03.2021 AR/