WPSS/279/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 383 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPSS No.279 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was serving with the respondents has attained the age of superannuation as "Chowkidar" on 31.08.2019.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite of sanction having been granted for the amount to be payable towards the gratuity and the leave encashment amount, and the arrears of the 7th Pay Commission. The details of which has been given by the petitioner in paragraph No.7, of the writ petition. The amount thus detailed, therein, has not yet been remitted to the petitioner though despite of the fact that the petitioner had been consistently pursuing his matter by filing various representations, including the representation dated 24.01.2021.

The petitioner in support of his contention has submitted that since the aforesaid amount stood sanctioned, and there was no dispute as such, there was no legal impediment in not remitting the amount in question. Coupled with the fact that he has made a reference to the judgments which had been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.11.2015, in Writ Petition (S/B) No.494 of 2015, "Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam", as well as the judgment passed by this Court in WPSS No.73 of 2019, "Kailash Chandra Naudiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another" as decided on 10.01.2019.

Owing to the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the petitioner had attained the age of 63 years, as of now after having been superannuated as back as on 31.08.2019, and he is still craving for the remittance of the retiral benefits, which already stand sanctioned by the respondents, this writ petition too would stands disposed of directing the respondents to remit the amount which stand sanctioned and which has been detailed by the petitioner in paragraph No.7, of the writ petition, within the time framed, as it has been provided for the remittance of the retiral benefits in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 30.11.2015.

It is expected that the aforesaid amount would be paid to the petitioner within the time period, as provided by the judgment for the remittance of the leave encashment along with the arrears of the 7th Pay Commission.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 23.02.2022

NR/