Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Sumita Uniyal vs Managing Director Uttarakhand ... on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 897 of 2010
Smt. Sumita Uniyal ....... Petitioner
Vs.
Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun
& others ......Respondents
Present: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondents.
Judgment
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
"(i). Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 21-08-10 (Annexure-1
to the writ petition) passed by the Respondent no. 2 after
calling the entire records from the respondents.
(ii). Issue writ rule or directions in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the entire amount
salary, allowances along with other retiral dues of the
husband of the petitioner together 18% interest thereon had
it been the impugned order was never in existence.
(iii). Issue writ rule or directions in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of
the sad demise of her husband on a suitable post in view of
her educational qualification.
(iv). Issue appropriate writ rule or directions to award
damages and compensation which may be quantified by this
Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice for the tortuous and
malafide act of the respondents and same be recovered from
the erring officers.
(v). Issue any other writ rule or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was
working with the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation. After
his death, the arrears of salary and other retiral dues were not paid to
the petitioner, therefore, for those reliefs with other reliefs, instant
petition has been instituted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset
would restrict his prayer to prayer no. 2. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been appointed on
compassionate ground, therefore, relief no. 3 has become infructuous.
It gets its disposal accordingly. Relief nos. 1 and 4 have not been
pressed by the petitioner at this stage. The writ petition is rejected qua
relief nos. 1 and 4. It is argued that the petitioner prays for the post
retiral dues as well as arrears of salary of her husband, which have not
been paid by the respondents.
5. On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel would
submit that on 21.01.2011, all the arrears, including the arrears of
salary, encashment, group insurance and gratuity were sent to the
petitioner through a cheque, which she did not receive.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that no such cheque
was ever received by the petitioner.
7. At it, learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the respondents would again remit the amount to the petitioner,
who is working in the respondent-department only.
8. The Court takes on record the statement made on behalf
of the respondents. The writ petition may be disposed of with certain
directions for making the payment of admissible dues to the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the
respondents to pay all the arrears pertaining to the deceased Chandra
Shekhar Uniyal as well as post retiral dues, which are admissible,
within two months from today.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.03.2021
AR/
