Sumita Uniyal vs Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i). Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21-08-10 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by

the Respondent no. 2 after calling the entire records from the respondents.

(ii). Issue writ rule or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the entire amount salary, allowances along with other

retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner together 18% interest thereon had it been the impugned order was never in existence.

(iii). Issue writ rule or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment on account of the sad demise of her husband on a suitable post in view of her educational qualification.

(iv). Issue appropriate writ rule or directions to award damages and compensation which may be quantified by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of

justice for the tortuous and malafide act of the respondents and same be recovered from the erring officers.

(v). Issue any other writ rule or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.â€​

It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was working with the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation. After his death, the arrears of

salary and other retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, therefore, for those reliefs with other reliefs, instant petition has been instituted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset would restrict his prayer to prayer no. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground, therefore, relief no. 3 has become infructuous. It gets its disposal accordingly. Relief nos.

1 and 4 have not been pressed by the petitioner at this stage. The writ petition is rejected qua relief nos. 1 and 4. It is argued that the petitioner prays

for the post retiral dues as well as arrears of salary of her husband, which have not been paid by the respondents.

On behalf of the respondents, learned counsel would submit that on 21.01.2011, all the arrears, including the arrears of salary, encashment, group

insurance and gratuity were sent to the petitioner through a cheque, which she did not receive.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that no such cheque was ever received by the petitioner.

At it, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents would again remit the amount to the petitioner, who is working in the

respondent-department only.

The Court takes on record the statement made on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition may be disposed of with certain directions for making

the payment of admissible dues to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to pay all the arrears pertaining to the deceased Chandra Shekhar Uniyal as

well as post retiral dues, which are admissible, within two months from today.