Chandra Mohan Rastogi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4096 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1318 of 2021

Chandra Mohan Rastogi                                    ....... Petitioner
                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
and Others                                          ......Respondents



Present:
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for the State.



                            JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant writ petition, the

following reliefs are sought;

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

Mandamus commanding and directing the

respondents to forthwith pay the entire post

retirement dues (gratuity, encashment and

Pension) of petitioner or within time stipulated by

this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus commanding and directing the

respondents to pay penal interest on the delayed

payment of gratuity and encashment.

(iii) Issue writ, order or direction, which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

circumstances of the case.

(vi) Award the cost of the petition."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that having

served the respondent department, he retired on

31.10.2020, but, his retiral dues has yet not been paid.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to

know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to

why should this Court entertain the writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the

availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State

Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar

Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner restricts his prayer to the

extent that petitioner be given liberty to make a fresh

representation to the respondent no. 4 within a period of

three weeks, with further directions to the respondent no.

3 to decide the representation within the given time.

6. Learned counsel for the State would submit

that a decision will be taken up on the representation,

that may be given by the petitioner within a period of four

weeks after its receipt.

7. The Court takes on record the statement

given by the learned State Counsel.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty

to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the

respondent no. 4 within a period of three weeks, with

further directions to the respondent no. 4 to decide the

representation within the stipulated time. But, in case,

the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration

of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject,

shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the

ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.10.2021 Ujjwal