Harish Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Via Video Conferencing)

The petitioner before this Court has come up with the case that after his initial appointment as a Mali on 04.02.1990, as Class-IV employee, after

rendering satisfactory services he had attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020. Since after the retirement, the pensionary benefits of the

petitioner was shown to have been approved and accepted by respondent No. 3 herein, as per the communication, which has been placed on record,

but still the gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 6,99,426/-, and the commutation of pension was not paid to the petitioner along with the statutory

interest, which has been contemplated under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, hence the petitioner had filed the present writ petition for

the following reliefs:-

“I. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concern respondents to forthwith release the retiral

benefits of the petitioner i.e. gratuity with interest, commutation of pension since the date of retirement and amount of General Provident Fund

(G.P.F.) as disclosed/admitted in Annexure No. 2 and further to release the regular pension for which the petitioner is entitled.

II. to issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

III. award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.â€​

When this writ petition was entertained, this Court, on 08.06.2021, had passed the following orders:-

“The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020, but his grievance is that though despite determination of his pension which is

being directed to be made payable @ Rs. 19600/- per month and despite the sanction of the gratuity of Rs. 6,99,426/- and the commutation as is

reflected from Annexure 2, to the writ petition, has not been remitted to the petitioner. Though he contends that despite the fact, he has already

approached the respondents to pay the same.

In fact, after the documentation, which was processed by the respondents, as apparent from Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which was made by the

Principal, Govt. ITI, Almora, to the Chief Treasury Officer, recommending the payment of gratuity, as referred therein along with the pensionary

benefits, there cannot be any impediment, as such for the purposes of remitting of retiral dues to an employee who has already superannuated on

31.07.2020.

Before this Court takes a serious view in the matter, the respondents are directed to remit the pensionary benefits as determined to the petitioner and

in the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel for the State will complete the instruction within a period of 10 days from today.

List this writ petition immediately after 10 days.â€​

When the matter was taken up today, the learned Brief Holder for the State has made a statement that as far as the claim raised by the petitioner

for the payment of gratuity and the commutation of pension, that has already been remitted to the petitioner and which is a fact, not denied by the

petitioner’s counsel, who admits the disbursement of amount.

But, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the gratuity, the commutation of pension has already been paid to the

petitioner, but on account of the wrongful withholdment of gratuity, he would also be entitled to statutory interest, which is contemplated under Section

7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Since the principal amount of gratuity and commutation of pension has been admittedly stated to have been paid to the petitioner, this writ petition is

being disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 5 herein, to determine the interest payable on the gratuity, which was wrongfully withheld

by the respondents, as it has been provided under Section 7(3-4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the said determination of the interest would be

paid by the respondent No. 5, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order and the amount would be

disbursed to the petitioner towards interest within a period of two weeks thereafter.

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

The petitioner’s counsel, after the conclusion of the aforesaid judgment has stated that the respondent No. 6 herein, has not disbursed the

G.P.F. amount of the petitioner. He too is directed to do the needful and ensure the disbursement of G.P.F. amount, if not already paid to the

petitioner, within the aforesaid period.

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