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
10 paragraphs · 194 wordsKURIAN JOSEPH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I.A. No.3 is allowed.
The termination of the appellant (since deceased) is under challenge.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that Respondent No.2/Nigam was wound up in the year 2000 and the employees of the Nigam were absorbed by the State of Uttarakhand in different departments.
Having regard to the charges which have been proved in the inquiry and the concurrent findings thereon, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings.
We direct the State to verify as to whether the appellant-M.K. Jain (died on 07.12.2007) had been given all his dues including the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. This exercise shall be done within three months from today. In case, it is found that any amount was due to be paid to the deceased appellant, his legal heirs shall be paid the same with interest @ 18% per annum, within a month thereafter.
Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs.