Deepak Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The defect, as pointed out by the Registry is ignored. The petitioner after completing his 35 years of service has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018 and he retired as Senior Administrative Officer from the respondent's department. The respondent's department had already sanctioned the pension of the petitioner and other retiral dues which is payable to him by an order dated 30.08.2018. When despite of representation being submitted by the petitioner, the same was not complied with, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the reliefs as detailed in para 6 of the writ petition which is quoted hereunder:

1

Leave encashment of 300 days (sanctioned vide order dated 30.08.2018 but not paid)

Rs. 6,27,020/

2

Gratuity (calculated and sanctioned to pay vide order dated 30.08.2018 but not paid

Rs. 10,34,583/-

Total

Rs. 16,61,603/

The parity has been claimed by the petitioner from the judgements referred herein below, and the case of the petitioner is that the amount as mentioned in the representation of the petitioner stood sanctioned, are the facts which are not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even this Court is of the view that the undisputed amount of sanctioned retiral dues ought not to have been curtailed to be paid to a retired employee, as it acts as a source of survival of the retired employee and his family too who after retirement becomes dependent on the pension and retiral dues to meet their daily requirements. It is not a bounty but rather a right of the retired employee to be paid with its' retiral dues payable and entitled to be received by him under law.

For the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner claims parity based on the judgment rendered in an identical Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 112 (S/S) of 2019, Chandrawati Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another as decided by this Court on 10th January, 2019 as well as judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015, Lalita Prasad Tewari  Vs.  Uttarakhand  Payjal  Sansadhan  Vikas  Evam Nirman Nigam, decided on 30th November, 2015 and also on the judgement rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 778 of 2018, Mahesh Chandra Gururani v. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam and another on 15th June, 2018 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).

In view of the above reasons and considering the ratio laid down in the above cited judgements, and also considering the sanction already granted by the Competent Authority of respondent, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent Nigam, directing it to pay the post retiral dues as detailed in para 6 of the writ petition, in the following manner:-

1

Leave encashment of 300 days (sanctioned vide order dated 30.08.2018 but not paid)

Rs. 6,27,020/- (within three months)

2

Gratuity (calculated and sanctioned to pay vide order dated 30.08.2018 but not paid)

Rs. 10,34,583/- (within two months)

Total

Rs. 16,61,603/

The respondent/Nigam is directed to pay the post retiral dues to the petitioner as mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment within a period as mentioned against each head of dues payable to the petitioner from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the judgment.

So far claim for payment of 7th Pay Commission is concerned, the same is to be covered by the directions as issued by the Division Bench in a judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 639 of 2018, Shivraj Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, as decided on 14th December, 2018.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

However, there would be no order as to costs.