Uttarakhand High Court
Rajpal Yadav vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation And ... on 5 June, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
(1) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1363 of 2023
Rajpal Yadav ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(2) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1556 of 2022
Anil Kumar Bhardwaj ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(3) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1362 of 2023
Suresh Singh Chauhan ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(4) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1364 of 2023
Rakesh Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(5) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1380 of 2023
Paltoo Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(6) Writ Petition (S/S) No.1382 of 2023
Surendra Prasad Sahani ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
(7) Writ Petition (S/S) No.2045 of 2023
Prakash Chandra Paliwal ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors. ....Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents,
appeared through video conferencing.
2
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since common question of law is involved in
all these writ petitions, hence, they are taken up and
decided by this common judgment. For the sake of
brevity, the facts of WPSS No.1363 of 2023 are taken
into consideration.
2. Defect in filing the counter affidavit is
overruled, as it is formal in nature. Counter
affidavits/short counter affidavits filed by the
respondents are taken on record. Miscellaneous
applications (IA No.1 of 2023 and IA Nos.1 of 2024)
made therefor, are allowed.
3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
office order dated 20.08.2021 passed by respondent
No.3 (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ
petition).
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
office order dated 01.11.2022 passed by respondent
No.4 (contained as Annexure No.2 to this writ
petition).
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondents to re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner as
per 3rd ACP Grade Pay of Rs.4200 which was already
sanctioned and implemented from 24.02.2016 and to
pay the difference of arrear of payment towards
gratuity and leave encashment as per 3rd ACP.
iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondents to pay the balance amount towards
gratuity i.e. Rs.5,74,333/- along with interest @ 18%
per annum and pay the arrear of 7th Pay Commission
which is still unpaid."
4. Petitioner was initially appointed as Black
Smith on 17.07.1989 in the then Uttar Pradesh
Transport Corporation. He was duly retired from the
services of the respondent department on
31.01.2023. On 20.08.2021 and 01.11.2022,
respondent Nos.3 and 4 issued office orders, whereby,
the salary of the petitioner was revised/amended and
thereafter re-fixed pursuant to the letter No.164 dated
11.11.2020. On 23.08.2021 and 16.09.2021, the
respondent issued a notice to the petitioner regarding
the proposal of amendment by fixation of ACP as per
order dated 20.08.2021, however, the petitioner duly
replied the aforesaid letter stating therein entire facts,
but, while the office order dated 1.11.2022 has been
passed by the respondents noting was considered and
simply rejected the representation of the petitioner.
On 04.02.2023, an office order was issued, whereby,
payment of gratuity was sanctioned as Rs.9,20,967/-,
but, it is also stated in the said office order that the
deduction of Rs.5,74,333/- is to be made as per
amendment/revised pay scale, which is totally illegal
and arbitrary.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
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.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has
also submitted that the present matter is squarely
covered by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022,
which was affirmed in Special Appeals as referred
above by learned counsel for the petitioner vide
judgment dated 04.04.2024.
7. In this view of the matter, all these writ
petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment and
order dated 14.06.2022 passed by a Coordinate
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 petitioner(s) shall abide by the aforesaid judgment
and order dated 14.06.2022, which is later on
affirmed vide judgment dated 04.04.2024 in Special
Appeals as stated above.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.06.2024
PN
