Uttarakhand High Court
Jasbir Singh vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation And ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2276 of 2022
Jasbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and Ors.
....Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the sole
respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is
condoned. Delay condonation application (IA/1/2023)
made therefor, is allowed. Counter affidavit filed by
the respondents, is taken on record.
3. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, is
taken on record. Miscellaneous application
(IA/2/2023) made therefor, is allowed.
4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing
the office order dated 27.11.2021 passed by
respondent No.2 (Annexure No.1) and further a
direction to respondents to make the payment of
leave encashment of about 300 days i.e.
Rs.5,33,000/- and arrear of gratuity which is
deducted after issuing an office order dated
27.11.2021 i.e. about Rs.6,74,697/- to the petitioner
along with interest @ 18% per annum.
5. Petitioner was initially engaged as Driver on
01.11.1986 in the then Uttar Pradesh Transport
Corporation. He was duly retired from the services of
the respondent department on 31.07.2019. On
25.02.2021, the Assistant General Manager
(Operation) Uttarakhand Transport Corporation,
Rishikesh issued an officer order/letter, whereby
respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that a
payment of gratuity has been sanction about Rs.10
Lakh. Vide order dated 11.11.2020, whereby the ACP
of the employees were revised, the payment of
gratuity of the petitioner was also revised,
consequently, the same was sanctioned of about
Rs.8,74,246/- in favour of the petitioner, which is
totally illegal and arbitrary for the reason that before
the said fixation, the respondents did not give any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After re-
fixation of the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the
aforesaid letter No.164 dated 11.11.2020, that too
after retirement of the petitioner, the respondents
have deducted the payment of gratuity from the
payment of leave encashment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
7. 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.
8. In this view of the matter, the writ petition
is 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 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.)
03.05.2024
PN
