Surendra Singh Rautela vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 771 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 Civil Writ Petition No. 246 of 2021

Surendra Singh Rautela                                    ...... Petitioner

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                          ..... Respondents


Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt Bhatt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate for respondent No.3.



                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"A. To declare the action of the respondents in the matter, as arbitrary and illegal.

B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the amount of retiral benefits of the petitioner including arrears of pension and gratuity etc., to the petitioner details whereof, is given in para 41 of this writ petition.

C. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner, as directed vide judgment dated 07.11.2016 passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No.19 to the writ petition).

D. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

E. To issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

F. To award the cost of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. "

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as a Stenographer for 30 years with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital and retired on 31.12.2016. When after retirement his dues were not paid, he had to file a writ petition. On 29.11.2017, directions were issued to the respondents to proceed to decide the claims of the petitioner. It is submitted that pension has been paid to the petitioner from February, 2018 onwards but 13 months pension and gratuity, etc. had not been paid.

3. At the very outset learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the claim of the petitioner is not rejected but due to financial crises the arrears and other dues could not be paid. He seeks four months' time to clear dues of the petitioner.

4. The Court takes on record the statement of learned counsel for respondent No.3.

5. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent No.3 to make payment of all admissible dues to the petitioner within a period of four months from today including interest as fixed by the statute.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.03.2021 Sanjay