WPSS/16/2022 of JYOTI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No.14 of 2022

Harendar Singh Bisht

…....Petitioner Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others

…..Respondents

With Writ Petition (S/S) No.15 of 2022

Bishan Singh Janoti

…....Petitioner Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others

…..Respondents

With

Writ Petition (S/S) No.16 of 2022

Km. Jyoti & another

…....Petitioners

State of Uttarakhand & others

…..Respondents

Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Vinayak Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the Uttarakhand Payjal Nigam, Udham Singh Nagar.

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)

These are the three Writ Petitions, which engages consideration of the common question of facts and law, apart from the fact, that the claim raised, therein, by the petitioners since is payability to them, by way of the retiral benefits which stood admitted by respondent vide their sanction by the respondents, the controversy and their claim becomes easier to be considered by this Court.

2. The petitioners have contended that they would be entitled to receive the retiral benefits which would payable to them towards various retiral benefits head as detailed in Paragraph No.8, of the writ petitions respectively. They have filed Writ Petitions

praying for the said amount as detailed in the respective relief clause, may be disbursed, and further that the issue stands covered by the judgment which has already been rendered by this Court in Writ Petition being WPSS No.74 of 2019, “Rajendra Prasad Thapliyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another”, which was in turn based upon the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, as rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No.494 of 2015, “Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam”, as decided on 30.11.2015 which would be admittedly applicable in the instant writ petitions. The only distinctions in these three Writ Petitions are as under:-

3. In WPSS No.14 of 2022, “Harendar Singh Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”, the petitioner who was working with the respondents as Tax Collector, had attained the age of superannuation and retired from the services of the respondents on 31.05.2021, and has filed the writ petition, claiming for the remittance of the gratuity, and the statutory interest payable on it, arrears of the ACP, and the arrears of the 7[th] Pay Commission, as well as the bonus, as detailed in paragraph No.8, of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:-

F. Bonus for the year 2020-21 (Sanctioned Rs.6,908 (Approx) through bill No.74/2021-22 but not paid) (Sanctioned but not paid)

Total Amount

Rs.15,52,442/-

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount as payable to the petitioner already stood sanctioned by the orders which were passed by the respondents, being Order No.380/CR No.866, dated 28.08.2021, whereby the pension and gratuity was sanctioned and the ACP benefits too was sanctioned through Bill No.30/2018-19, and the arrears of the 7[th] Pay Commission, as claimed, was also sanctioned by Bill No.60/18-19, and Bill No.110/18-19. So far as the claim of the bonus is concerned, it was sanctioned by the Bill No.74/2021-22. In these circumstances where the liability of remittance of the retiral benefits of the petitioner, as detailed in paragraph No.8, of the writ petition, is fact which is admitted by the respondents, and as referred in the writ petition, there would exists no practical controversy as such pertaining to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the amount. Hence, the writ petition would stands disposed of under the same terms and conditions as passed in WPSS No.74 of 2019, “Rajendra Prasad Thapliyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another”, dated 10.01.2019, directing the respondents for the remittance of the amount as claimed by the petitioner in paragraph No.8, of the writ petition, within the time schedule as it has been provided in paragraph No.4 of the judgment dated 10.01.2019, rendered in WPSB No.74 of 2019.

5. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

6. In WPSS No.15 of 2022, “Bishan Singh Janoti Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others”, the petitioner was in the service of the respondents, and he has retired from the post of “Pipeline Mistri”, on 30.11.2020, and overall claim of the retiral benefits as detailed by the petitioner has been given in paragraph No.8, of the writ petition, which relates to the payability of gratuity, leave

encashment and the arrears of the 7[th] Pay Commission. Paragraph No.8, is extracted hereunder:-

7. In this case too, the gratuity of the petitioner stood sanctioned by the respondents vide their Letter No.334/CR No.843, dated 19.05.2021, and accordingly the leave encashment and the arrears of the 7[th] Pay Commission also stood sanctioned by Bill No.122/2018-19 and Bill No.90/2020-21 and Bill No.8/2021-22, totaling to an amount of Rs.13,13,230/-.

8. This writ petition too would stands disposed of under the same terms and conditions as it has been passed in WPSS No.74 of 2019, “Rajendra Prasad Thapliyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another”, dated 10.01.2019, directing the respondents for the remittance of the amount as claimed by the petitioner in paragraph No.8, of the writ petition, within the time schedule as given in paragraph No.4, of the judgment dated 10.01.2019, rendered in WPSB No.74 of 2019.

9. In WPSS No.16 of 2022, “Km. Jyoti and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others”, the late father of the petitioners died in harness while he was working as “Chowkidar” on 04.06.2020. Later on the mother of the petitioner too had met with the sad demise on 15.10.2020, and the petitioners before this Court, are the legal heirs of the deceased employee, who has claimed in the writ petition for the remittance of the amount payable towards gratuity,

leave encashment, arrears of the 7[th] Pay Commission and the bonus, totaling to an amount of Rs.19,35,339/-

10. In this case too, the respondents have already sanctioned the gratuity and the family pension by Order No.296/CR No.813, dated 01.01.2021, and the balance amount is also shown to have sanctioned as per the details which has been given in paragraph No.9, of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:-

A. Gratuity Rs.14,21,784/- (sanctioned but not paid) B. Leave Encashment Rs.4,58,640/- (approx) (sanctioned but not paid)

C. Arrears of 7[th] Pay Commission

Rs.44,613 (approx) 01-01-2017 to 30-09-2017 (sanctioned but not paid)

D. Bonus for the year 2018-19 and 2019-Rs.10,362 (approx) 2020 (sanctioned but not paid) Total Amount Rs.19,35,339/-

11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition too would stands disposed of under the same terms and conditions in which the WPSS No.14 of 2022, has been disposed of, in the light of the earlier judgment rendered by this Court, for the purposes of fixation of time for the purposes of payment schedule, and time within which the payment was to be made.

12. Accordingly, writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to remit the retiral benefits to the petitioners, which had also stood sanctioned by the respondents within the time schedule as provided in paragraph No.4 of the judgment dated 10.01.2019, rendered in WPSB No.74 of 2019.

13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)