Prem Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1619 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
                    Writ Petition (S/S) No.545 of 2021
Prem Singh                                                            ......Petitioner

                                          Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & another                                     .....Respondents

Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. None is present for the respondent no.2.

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)

(Via video conferencing).

List revised. None appears for the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1/State is being represented by the Standing Counsel.

2. The brief fact, which engages consideration of this Court in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner has come up with a case that after his induction into the services with the respondent, he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020, and has retired from the post of Work Agent.

3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regards to the non-remittance of the gratuity, leave encashment and the arrears of the 7th Pay Commission, which is amounting to a sum of Rs.13,27,488/-, as it has been detailed in paragraph no.7 of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:- "A. Gratuity - Rs.7,76,178/- (approx) (sanctioned but not paid)

B. Leave Encashment

(300 days) - Rs.5,00,760/- (approx) (sanctioned but not paid)

C. Arrears of 7th Pay Commission - Rs.50,550 (approx) (sanctioned but not paid)

Total amount Rs.13,27,488/- (approx)"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement before this Court that prior to the matter being taken up in the revised call, he has informed the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 - Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, but still he has not ensured his appearance. Hence, this Court has got no other options except to proceed with the writ petition on its own merit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as far as the issue of entitlement of the petitioner is concerned, with regards to the remittance of the aforesaid amount payable towards the gratuity and leave encashment as detailed in paragraph no.7 of the present writ petition is a fact, which is admitted by the respondents in their correspondence i.e. Letter No.260/CR No.768, dated 23.06.2020. Hence, the said liability of payment of the amount has been sanctioned to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent themselves.

6. Besides this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a reference to a judgment which was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.11.2015 in the writ petition being WPSB No.494 of 2015, "Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam", wherein almost an identical issue was involved and the Division Bench, has passed the following orders on 30.11.2015. The relevant part is quoted hereunder:-

"5. The petitioners are retired employees and we feel that it will be unfair to deprive them of the benefits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of all the three writ petitions as follows:

(i) Within a period of two months from today, the amount of leave encashment be paid to the petitioners.

(ii) Within a period of five months from today, the amount due by way of commutation of pension be paid to the petitioners.

(iii) The balance amount due by way of other benefits be paid to the petitioners within a period of seven months from today.

(iv) We also direct that, if the Corporation has moved the Government of Uttarakhand seeking funds for the payment of the said amounts, the

Government of Uttarakhand will consider the said request in accordance with law at the earliest."

7. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court, yet another Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 429 of 2021, "Smt. Usha Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another", and the same was disposed of on account of the admitted liability, in view of the correspondence which is already referred above.

8. In view of the aforesaid ratios, this writ petition too would stands disposed of in terms of the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.11.2015, which has already been quoted above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay retiral benefits, as detailed in their correspondence dated 23.06.2020 within the time schedule as framed by the Division Bench, would be strictly adhered to by the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.05.2021 NR/