SPA/250/2022 of MANAGING DIRECTOR UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs NANDA BALLABH TEWARI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2022

02[ND] NOVEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN: Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And

Mumtaj Ahmad ….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

…..Appellant.

And

Dungar Singh

….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2022

BETWEEN: Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And Nanda Ballabh Tewari ….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants.

And

Hemendra Singh

….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2022

BETWEEN: Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And

Harminder Singh

….Respondent.

WithSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2022

BETWEEN: Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And

Anand Singh Adhikari

….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2022

BETWEEN: Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And

Chandni Pandey

….Respondent.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & others …..Appellants. And

Deewan Singh Rawat ….Respondent. Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel. Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsels.

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

These special appeals have been preferred against

the common judgment dated 14.06.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in writ petitions preferred by each of the aforesaid respondents. The writ petitions preferred by each of the aforesaid respondents are the following:-

“1. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1595 of 2021, Mumtaj Ahmad

vs. Managing Director & others.

2. Writ Petition (S/S) No.301 of 2022, Dungar Singh vs. Managing Director & others.

3. Writ Petition (S/S) No.302 of 2022, Nanda Ballabh Tewari vs. Managing Director & others.

4. Writ Petition (S/S) No.306 of 2022, Hemendra Singh

vs. Managing Director & others.

5. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1627 of 2021, Harminder Singh vs. Managing Director & others.

6. Writ Petition (S/S) No.305 of 2022, Anand Singh Adhikari vs. Managing Director & others.

7. Writ Petition (S/S) No.309 of 2022, Chandni Pandey

vs. Managing Director & others.

8. Writ Petition (S/S) No.303 of 2022, Deewan Singh Rawat vs. Managing Director & others.”

2. The petitioners had preferred the writ petitions

seeking to release their retiral dues, which were withheld by the appellant-Corporation. The only justification offered for withholding retiral dues of the respondents herein was

paucity of funds with the appellant-Corporation. The learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein (apart from eighteen other writ petitions), by directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the retiral benefits with its arrears, as sought by the petitioners-employees in each of the respective writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Costs of Rs.5,000/- have also been imposed upon the appellants-Corporation in each of the writ petitions.

3. Considering the fact that there was no recovery claimed to be outstanding from the respondents, and the only reason offered for non-payment of the retiral dues of the respondents herein was paucity of funds, we are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in these special appeals. The imposition of costs of Rs.5,000/- is also not unjustified, considering the fact that the respondents herein were driven to file writ petitions to receive their retiral dues- in respect whereof, there was no dispute.

4. We, therefore, dismiss the present special appeals. We, however, make it clear that this order shall not have any bearing on other special appeals preferred by the appellant-Corporation, arising from the impugned common judgment in relation to eighteen other writ petitioners, where the case of the appellant-Corporation is that on account of wrong fixation

of pay upon grant of A.C.P., the excess amounts have been

paid, which the appellant-Corporation is entitled to recover from the retiral dues of such employees.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 02[nd] November, 2022NISHANT

(R.C. KHULBE, J.)