Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/281/2022 on 17 February, 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. 281 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder, for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
With the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of
finally.
The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner has contended in the Writ Petition that
the petitioner had retired from the services of the
respondents as Junior Assistant on 30th April, 2020,
from the office of respondent No. 2. But despite of
the fact that the respondents vide their letter No.
338/CR No. 639 dated 23rd December, 2020, have
sanctioned the gratuity amount, as well as the leave
encashment amounting to Rs.10,34,748/- and
6,27,120/- respectively, but the same has not yet
been remitted to the petitioner, though he has
represented his claim before the respondents on a
number of occasions, including the submission of
the representations on 20th February, 2021 and 5th
November, 2021. The details of the amount claimed
by the petitioner has been given in para 7 of the
Writ Petition, which is extracted hereunder :-
A. Gratuity Rs.10,34,748/- (approx.)
(sanctioned but not paid)
B. Leave Encashment (300 Rs.6,27,120/- (approx.)
days) (sanctioned but not paid)
C. 5% Dearness Rs.78,000/- (approx.)
Allowance (sanctioned but not paid)
D. Arrears of 7th Pay Rs.1,27,817/- (approx.)
Commission (sanctioned but not paid)
E. Travelling Allowance Rs.11,402/- (approx.)
after retirement (sanctioned but not paid)
Total Amount Rs.18,79,087 (Approx.)
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that this issue stands covered by the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 30th
November, 2015, rendered in Writ Petition (S/B)
No. 494 of 2015, Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs.
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam
Nirrman Nigam, whereby, certain time frame has
been laid down by the Division Bench for the
purposes of remittance of the retiral benefits under
the different heads as given in the said judgment,
which was later on followed by this Court also in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 73 of 2019, Kailash
Chandra Naudiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
another, as decided on 10th January, 2019.
Owing to the aforesaid fact, which stands
admitted by the respondents, that since the amount
stands sanctioned, hence, there is no impediment as
such in remittance of the same, the Writ Petition
would stand disposed of in terms of the judgment
dated 10th January, 2019, as rendered in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 73 of 2019, and the amount as
detailed in para 7 of the Writ Petition under the
various heads would be ensured to be remitted to
the petitioner within the time schedule as provided
by the judgment dated 30th November, 2015,
rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015,
Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal
Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirrman Nigam
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 17.02.2022
Shiv
