AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 182 wordsSanjaya Kumar Mishra, J
1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2) The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent-Corporation. His complaint is that the retirement benefits due to him have not been paid. The benefits include gratuity and leave encashment.
3) Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, does not actually dispute the liability. However, the learned Senior Counsel does not, of course, agree to the exact amount due. His main contention is paucity of funds.
4) The petitioner is a retired employee and we feel that it will be unfair to deprive him of his retiral benefits. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, as follows:-
(i) Within a period of six months from today, the amount of gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner.
(ii) Within a period of six months from today, the amount of leave encashment shall be paid to the petitioner.
5) Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, as per Rules.