Uttarakhand High Court
Somati Prasad Dubey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 86 of 2022
Somati Prasad Dubey .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 91 of 2022
Dinesh Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 93 of 2022
Shyam Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 94 of 2022
Raj Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 95 of 2022
Harish Mehra .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .... Respondents
Present :-
Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate, for the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation.
Dated: 13th January, 2022
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
In all these five matters, it is almost an identical issue,
which is in consideration, which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in relation to the respective retired
employees of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, who has been
deprived of a timely remittance of their retiral benefits.
2. In order to better elucidate the matter, the factual aspects
of each of the case are being hereby dealt with separately :-
3. In Writ Petition No. 86 of 2022, the petitioner who was
working with the respondents as a Senior Clerk in the Rural Depot,
has attained the age of superannuation on 30th December, 2019, and
he has contended thereof in the Writ Petition that based on the
information received by him under the Right to Information Act,
dated 3rd August, 2021, an amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.
12,27,150/- and leave encashment amount to the tune of Rs.
5,91,000/- is due to be paid, but despite of his representation dated
30th December, 2020, and 15th December, 2021, since the said amount
has not yet been remitted and he has attained the age of 62 years, he
has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for the payment of the
amount referred above, along with statutory interest, which is
contemplated under Section 7 (3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act.
4. In Writ Petition No. 91 of 2022, the petitioner who was
working with the respondents as a Driver in the Hill Depot, has
attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2021, and an amount
of gratuity and leave encashment totaling to the tune of Rs.
17,00,000/- is due to be paid to him, but despite of his representation
dated 29th October, 2021, and 25th November, 2021, since the said
amount has not been remitted and he has attained the age of 62 years,
he has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for the payment of
the amount referred above, along with statutory interest, contemplated
under Section 7 (3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act.
5. In Writ Petition No. 93 of 2022, the petitioner who was
working with the respondents as a Senior Clerk in the Rural Depot,
has attained the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2020, and an
amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 11,58,300/- was payable to him,
(out of total gratuity amount), Rs.6,65,175/- has already been paid but
leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 6,08,400/-. The total balance
amount due to be paid is Rs.11,01,525/-, but despite of his
representation dated 15th December, 2021, since the said amount has
not been remitted and he has attained the age of 62 years, he has
prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for the payment of the
amount referred above, along with statutory interest, contemplated
under Section 7 (3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act.
6. In Writ Petition No. 94 of 2022, the petitioner who was
working with the respondents as a Driver (Trainer), in the Rural
Depot, has attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2021, and
he has contended thereof in the Writ Petition, that an amount of
gratuity to the tune of Rs. 12,28,500/-, leave encashment amount to
the tune of Rs. 6,08,400/- and over time bill amount of Rs.75,509, is
due to be paid, but despite of his representation dated 23rd December,
2021, since the said amount has not been remitted and that since he
has attained the age of 62 years, he has prayed for issuance of a writ
of mandamus for the payment of the amount referred above, along
with statutory interest, contemplated under Section 7 (3-A) of
Payment of Gratuity Act.
7. In Writ Petition No. 95 of 2022, the petitioner who was
working with the respondents as a Junior Centre Incharge, in the Rural
Depot, has attained the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2019, and
he has contended thereof in the Writ Petition that based on the
information received by him under the Right to Information Act,
dated 5th April, 2021, an amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.
13,50,720/- (out of which Rs. 10 lacs have been paid) and remaining
amount to be paid is Rs.3,50,720/- towards gratuity, and leave
encashment amount to the tune of Rs. 5,98,299/- is due to be paid, but
despite of his representation, since the said amount has not yet been
remitted and he has attained the age of 62 years, he has prayed for
issuance of a writ of mandamus for the payment of the amount
referred above, along with statutory interest, contemplated under
Section 7 (3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act.
8. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the entitlement of the remittance of the post retiral
amount was already a subject matter of consideration before the
Division Bench of this Court, wherein, the Division Bench has fixed
the time schedule for the remittance of the retiral dues which were
payable under different heads, which is required to be paid by the
respondents and the said judgment of the Division Bench, apart from
the fact that it has attained the finality, it was subsequently followed
by this Court too in number of other judgements.
9. Having considered the factual backdrop and the
consistent claim raised by the petitioners, in fact, it cannot be ruled
out that all the petitioners are the senior citizens, who have attained
the age of superannuation and their respective claim raised in the Writ
Petitions is with regard to their legal rights, which had accrued to
them on account of services rendered by them with the respondents
and as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the amount
of gratuity has had to be remitted to them within a certain stipulated
time frame, as it has been contemplated under the Act itself, and if
there is a delayed payment of gratuity, then the incumbent is held to
be entitled for the interest payable on it, as per the provisions
contained under Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
10. The factum of retirement, the factum of dues, as detailed
in the respective pleadings raised in the Writ Petitions, and as detailed
above, are not factually disputed.
11. In that eventuality, be it for whatsoever genuine reasons,
the respondents / Organization may be having, the retired employees
cannot be put to litigation by force to initiate the writ proceedings
even for remittance of their retiral benefits.
12. In that eventuality, and particularly in the light of the
judgment of the Division Bench, these Writ Petitions are being
disposed of with the direction to the respondents, that the respective
total amount payable to the petitioners towards the different heads of
retiral benefits, along with statutory interest payable on it under
Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, would be ensured to
be remitted to the petitioners in two equal quarterly installments. The
first quarterly installment will commenced from today and the
respondents would ensure to remit 50% of the total amount due to be
paid within three months from today, and the balance 50% amount
would be paid in the forthcoming quarterly installment.
13. Subject to aforesaid observations, these Writ Petitions
stand disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
13.01.2022
Shiv
