WPSS/1912/2019
2022 Latest Caselaw 965 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                        BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1912 of 2019


BETWEEN:

Dhyan Singh Bangari.                        ..........Petitioner
     (By Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others.             .....Respondents
     (By Mr. V.S. Rawat, Standing Counsel for the State of
     Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 5 and Ms. Seema Sah,
     Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3)



                      JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner served as Logging Officer in Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and retired on 30.06.2010. Subsequent to his retirement, a Government Order was issued on 28.01.2014, which provided for enhancement of Gratuity from `3.50 lacs to `10 lacs. Said policy regarding enhancement in the amount of Gratuity payable to employees of Government Corporation was to be made effective from 24.05.2010. Petitioner thus seeks benefit of Government Order dated 28.01.2014, which is made applicable from 24.05.2010.

3. Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that since petitioner has been paid gratuity, amounting to `3.50 lacs, as per old Policy, before 13.09.2013, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the changed Policy contained in Government Order dated 28.01.2014.

4. The contention raised on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Paragraph no. 3 of the Government Order dated 28.01.2014 categorically provides that the enhanced limit of gratuity would be applicable from 24.05.2010. Thus, anyone, who was continuing in service on the said date, would be entitled to benefit of Government Order dated 28.01.2014.

5. Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus without making a demand to the Competent Authority. She submits that petitioner has enclosed a representation, which he made to Additional Secretary to the State Government and not to Managing Director, who is Competent Authority, in respect of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the averment made in rejoinder affidavit, where it is stated that other similarly situate employee of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation was given benefit of Government Order dated 28.01.2014.

7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Managing Director, claiming benefit of Government Order dated 28.01.2014. If petitioner makes such representation within ten days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Managing Director, within four weeks from date of receipt of representation, along with certified copy of this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin