Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/89/2018 on 3 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
CONTEMPT PETITION No. 89 of 2018
BETWEEN:
Krishna Nand Dimari ...Petitioner
(None present for the petitioner)
AND:
Mr. B.M. Misra & another ... Opposite Parties
(By Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
1. Writ Court, vide order dated 09.10.2017,
disposed of WPSS No. 358 of 2017 in terms of the
judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed in SPA No. 202 of
2017. Operative portion of the said judgment passed
in SPA No. 202 of 2017 is reproduced below:-
"33. It may be true that communication dated
24.02.2011 detailed about grant of benefit of
gratuity at the time of superannuation. It provides
for the method of calculating the gratuity but
question is who should pay it. It is addressed to
Member Secretary of the District Administrative
Committee. Having regard to the fact that it relates
to the earlier years, we think that interest of justice
would be sub served, if we direct the appellant no. 2
to consider the case of the writ petitioners, having
regard to the conspectus of the Act, Rules and also
observations which we have made. A decision will be
taken within three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this judgment. He
must ensure that petitioners are paid amount that is
legally due to them.
34. Judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand
modified to the above extent and all the appeals
stand allowed, as above."
2. Since the retiral dues of the petitioner were
not released, therefore, petitioner filed this Contempt
petition alleging wilful disobedience of the order
passed by Writ Court.
3. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits
that sanction has been granted for releasing all the
retiral dues to the petitioner, except leave
encashment. Regarding leave encashment, he
submits that cooperative societies are reeling under
severe financial crisis; therefore, it is not possible to
release the amount of leave encashment in favour of
the petitioner. However, he assures the Court that
amount of leave encashment would also be released
to the petitioner within nine months.
4. Since necessary sanction for releasing of all
other retiral dues have already been granted by the
Competent Authority, therefore, this Court hopes and
trusts that such retiral dues would be released in
favour of the petitioner, within six months from
today. As regards amount of leave encashment,
since necessary sanction has not been granted so far,
therefore, the amount of leave encashment shall be
released to the petitioner, within nine months from
today.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the contempt
petition is closed. Notices issued to the opposite
parties are hereby discharged.
6. However, in case of any default on the part
of the opposite parties in releasing the retiral dues of
the petitioner within stipulated time, petitioner shall
be at liberty to seek recall of this order.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Aswal
