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
17 paragraphs · 306 wordsS.K. Mishra, J
The matter is taken up through Virtual hearing.
Petitioner is the employee of the respondent Corporation. He has retired. The complaint is that the retirement benefits due to him has not been paid.
The benefits include commutation, leave encashment and other benefits.
We have heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Corporation; and
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. D. S. Patni, learned senior counsel for the respondent Corporation, does not actually dispute the liability; but, he does not of course agree to the
exact amount due. His main contention is paucity of funds. He would further submit that in fact the Corporation has moved the Government and
repeated demands were made. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, would in fact submit that the Corporation has to
pay from its own funds and there is no obligation on the Government.
The petitioner is retired employees and we feel that it will be unfair to deprive him of the benefits. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
we dispose of the writ petition as follows:
(i) Within a period of two months from today, the amount of leave encashment be paid to the petitioner.
(ii) Within a period of five months from today, the amount due by way of commutation of pension be paid to the petitioner.
(iii) The balance amount due by way of other benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of seven months from today.
(iv) We also direct that, if the Corporation has moved the Government of Uttarakhand seeking funds for the payment of the said amounts, the
Government of Uttarakhand will consider the said request in accordance with law at the earliest.