Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1070 UK
Judgement Date : 5 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.894 of 2024
Dungar Ram ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No.895 of 2024
Geeta Joshi ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.899 of 2024
Satya Prakash Vishnoi ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.906 of 2024
Sri Raj Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.907 of 2024
Nanda Ballabh ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No.908 of 2024
Ram Kumar Prabhakar ........Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director and others .....Respondents
Present:- Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents, appeared through
video conferencing.
2
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Since all these petitions entail common questions of fact and law hence these are being taken up together and decided by this common order. Facts of WPSS No.894 of 2024 are taken up for consideration.
2. In all these petitions, petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned pay fixation as also the recovery order, whereby certain amount has been directed to be recovered from them.
3. Facts in nutshell are that petitioner was appointed as Black Smith Grade-II in the respondent-department and was promoted from time to time and lastly, he was promoted on the post of Body Mechanic and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.03.2018. Since post retiral dues of petitioner were not released, he represented the department and by order dated 28.12.2021, the pay of petitioner was re- fixed. The representation made by the petitioner could not yield any result. Even the amount due towards gratuity of petitioner has been reduced by the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 and further a direction for recovery of amount paid in excess was directed to be made. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy has been set at rest by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 passed in WPSS No.1593 of 2021 Balam Singh Aswal Vs. Managing Director and Others and Batch of writ petitions, which are subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2024 in Special Appeal No.245 of 2022, Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena, and Batch of Special Appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents also concedes and states that the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgments.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No.1593 of 2021 Balam Singh Aswal Vs. Managing Director and Others and Batch, which is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.245 of 2022 Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Batch, vide judgment dated 04.04.2024. The case of the petitioners shall abide by the aforesaid judgment and order dated
14.06.2022, which was later on affirmed vide judgment dated 04.04.2024 in Special Appeals as stated above.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.06.2024 AK
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!