Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/225/2021 on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 225 OF 2021
22nd NOVEMBER, 2021
Between:
Naveen Chandra Joshi ...... Petitioner
and
Managing Director, Uttarakhand
Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam
Nirman Nigam and another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Bhupendra
Singh Bisht, learned counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
With the consent of both the learned counsel for
the parties, this case is being decided at the admission
stage itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that
despite his retirement from the service on 31.08.2020,
from the post of Chief Administrative Officer, from the
Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam
("the respondent-Nigam", for short), he has not been
2
sanctioned his gratuity, leave encashment, and the arrears
of the 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to
31.12.2016. The amount of gratuity owed to the
petitioner is Rs.12,93,435/-; the amount of leave
encashment (300 days) is Rs.7,83,900/-; the arrears of
the 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016
are yet to be paid. Thus, the respondents are supposed to
pay gratuity, leave encashment, and the arrears of the 7th
Pay Commission to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that in identical matter, in the case of Karan Singh Vs
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman
Nigam & another [Writ Petition (S/B) No. 448 of 2021],
vide order dated 04th October, 2021, this Court had
directed the respondents to pay the leave encashment, the
gratuity, and the balance amount due by way of other
benefits, within a period of two months. Therefore, the
learned counsel submits that a similar order should be
passed even in the present case.
4. Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Senior Counsel for
the respondents, has not challenged the stand taken by
the petitioner. His only defence is that the respondent-
Nigam could not pay the gratuity, the leave encashment,
and the arrears of the 7th Pay Commission w.e.f.
3
01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016, as the respondent-Nigam is
facing a financial crunch. Moreover, the State Government
is not granting sufficient funds to the respondent-Nigam to
meet its financial liabilities.
5. The position being taken by the learned Senior
Counsel is clearly unjustified. For, financial constraint
cannot be a reason for denying a retired employee his
gratuity and leave encashment.
6. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent No.
1 to pay an amount of Rs.12,93,435/- under the category
'gratuity', an amount of Rs. 7,83,900/- under the category
'leave encashment', and the arrears of the 7th Pay
Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016, within a
period of two months from the date of submission of the
certified copy of this Order.
7. With the direction as above, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
_______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
____________________
NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, J.
Dt: 22nd NOVEMBER, 2021
Negi
