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 · 212 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Petitioner claims gratuity and leave encashment from the respondents on the ground that having served with the respondents Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, he retired on 27.12.2018. But, the dues has yet not been paid.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents Corporation has admitted its claim and they are not denying the claim.
When questioned, learned counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that the respondents Corporation admits the claim, but due to financial crunch Corporation needs reasonable time to make the payment.
The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation.
The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents, to make payment of all admissible retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of four months from today.