S.K. Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of July, 2011, his G.P.F., leave encashment, Group Insurance, and also to sanction provisional pension to enable him to survive; and a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.07.2011, and to declare the same as NON EST in the eyes of law.

By the order dated 26.07.2011, the petitioner was suspended from service on the eve of his retirement on 31.07.2011. He was also issued a charge-sheet on the very same day i.e. 26.07.2011. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is being paid provisional pension. The earlier charge-sheet dated 26.07.2011 appears to have been withdrawn, and a fresh charge-sheet appears to have been issued, during the pendency of the writ petition, on 06.02.2018; and an Inquiry Officer appears to have been appointed in July, 2018.

While disciplinary proceedings appear to have been initiated after more than six years of the petitioner's retirement from service, it would be inappropriate for us to examine the validity of the subsequent charge-sheet issued on 06.02.2018, since its validity has not been put in issue in these writ proceedings.

Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would state that the inquiry would be completed, and an order would be passed by the disciplinary authority thereafter, within six weeks from today.

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to dispose of the writ petition recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel. It is also made clear that, after an order is passed by the disciplinary authority, and if the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, it is always open to him to question the validity of the said order in appropriate legal proceedings raising all such grounds, as are available to him in law, including the grounds raised in the present writ petition.

Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the petitioner is now being paid provisional pension in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the provisional pension being paid to him is under the 2006 pre-revised scales of pay, and he has not been extended the benefit of payment of provisional pension in terms of the 2016 revised scales of pay. Since no such claim has been made in this writ petition, suffice it to direct the Secretary, Skill Development and Employment, Government of Uttarakhand, to examine the petitioner's entitlement to be paid provisional pension under the 2016 revised scales of pay, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, and, if he is entitled thereto, to then pay the said amount to him, along with arrears, within two weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.