Pan Singh Karki vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The services of the petitioner are governed by U.P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations, 1975. As per the provisions contained under

Regulation 149, the services of the petitioner falls to be within the employees gratuity fund and he is entitled for the benefit of gratuity. The petitioner

contends that after having rendered services with respondent no. 4, he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016. As per his case, he was

entitled for payment of the gratuity, leave encashment and the benefit of ACP as per the sixth pay commission report. All these claims of the

petitioner have not been honoured by respondent no. 4. Consequently, he had to invoke the jurisdiction by filing present Writ Petition for the following

reliefs:

“(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to release amount of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of

2nd and 3rd ACP and arrears of the 6th and 7th pay revision as pointed out by the respondent through his communication dated 23.05.2018 forthwith

in accordance with law with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(ii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award cost of the petitioner to the petitioner.

What has been reflected from record is that respondent no. 3 themselves have passed an order on 1.032017, whereby, they have sanctioned the

leave encashment of 150 days and also sanctioned the gratuity payable to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.7,67,700/-. Despite of there being sanctioned

already accorded by respondent no. 3 on 01.03.2017, the same has not been paid even after the lapse of more than one year, which has resulted into

drawing the petitioner and his family to the verge of starvation because the amount payable towards leave encashment, gratuity serves as the life line

of subsistence to a retired employee. Due to inaction on part of the respondent to pay the amount thus sanctioned towards above heads as claimed by

the petitioner, he has filed the present Writ. Rather in the order of sanction the respondent no. 4 has quantified the amount payable towards gratuity as

to Rs.7,67,700/-. Hence, there cannot be any dispute regards amount due to be paid.

The learned counsel for respondent no. 4 Mr. Manav Sharma submits that, in principal, he admits that the petitioner is entitled to receive the

gratuity, leave encashment and the benefit of the ACP and arrears of the pay commission but, he expresses the inability of respondent no. 4 to remit

the amount as sanctioned by the order dated 01.03.2017, on the ground that respondent no. 4 suffers from financial crisis, because the State is not

providing any financial support to respondent no. 4. Its due to lack of providing of financial support by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 4 they are

unable to pay the amount of retiral dues as payable to petitioner. This inability is an inter se issue between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4, that

in itself, cannot be the ground for not paying the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits claimed for because a recourse to the

argument as a defence of lack of financial capability is not available to respondent no. 4 in the cases where post retiral are admittedly payable and, in

particular, those dues which stands admitted to be paid in view of the sanction already granted. All the more reason in the order of sanction dated

01.03.2017 or any other correspondence the respondents have not expressed this inability to pay the amount due to shortage of the funds.

Its due to For the reasons assigned above, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent no. 4 to pay gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of the

second and third ACP and arrears of the sixth and seventh pay commission as pointed out in the sanctioned letter dated 01.03.2017 positively within a

period of six weeks from today.

However, it is clarified that respondent no.4 would grant all the amount which stands sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.

Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition stands allowed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.