Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2291/2022 on 7 December, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 2291 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. D.N. Sharma & Ms. Manju
Bahuguna, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 3.
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Petitioner served as Night
Watchmen in a primary society, namely-
Bahuuddeshiya Nandpur, Khempur Kisan
Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Khempur, Post
Gularbhoj, District Udham Singh Nagar,
and completed age of superannuation,
on 30.04.2020. According to him, his all
other service benefits have been paid,
however, the amount of gratuity has not
been released so far. Thus feeling
aggrieved, petitioner has approached
this Court seeking following relief:-
"(i) a writ order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents to
pay the gratuity of the petitioner for the service
rendered by him with the respondents for the
period 1990 to 2020 with interest applicable
thereon since the date of retirement of
petitioner till the final payment."
On the request of learned State
counsel, he was granted time to get
instructions. Today, on instructions, he
submits that petitioner had made a
complaint to the District Assistant
Registrar regarding non-payment of his
gratuity and also regarding interpolation
in his date of birth. He further submits
that in the inquiry, the allegation levelled
by petitioner that his date of birth was
interpolated in his service record was
found to be untrue. He further submits
that the payment of gratuity could not
be made in view of pendency of criminal
case of theft against petitioner. He
points out that petitioner was asked to
furnish status report as regards the
criminal case and also the document in
support of his claim that, as per his date
of birth he is entitled to continue in
service, however, petitioner has not
furnished the desired document,
consequently, his gratuity could not be
released.
Learned counsel for petitioner has
drawn attention of this Court to the
judgment dated 10.01.2014 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar
in Criminal Case No. 611 of 2012.
Perusal of the said judgment reveals that
petitioner was acquitted of the charge
under Section 380 & 411 IPC. Regarding
the documentary evidence in support of
petitioner's claim that his date of birth is
different from that recorded in his
service record, learned counsel submits
that petitioner will submit necessary
evidence before the Competent Authority
within two weeks.
Accordingly, writ petition is
disposed of by permitting petitioner to
make representation to the Competent
Authority regarding his claim for
gratuity. If he makes such
representation and also furnishes the
desired document, the Competent
Authority shall take decision on the
representation, within four weeks from
the date of its receipt. If everything is
found in order, then the necessary order
for payment of gratuity shall be made,
within one week from taking decision on
petitioner's representation.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.12.2022
Navin
