Disposed¶20

Munna Lal Yadav M.L. Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020WRIA/4197/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-retiral dues; leave encashment; gratuity payment; employees' provident fund; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida; ITTUP; superannuation retirement 30.07.2008; counter affidavit; no further direction; writ petition disposed of as jointly agreed; Writ-A 4197 of 2014; Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief or direction; the writ petition was disposed of as jointly agreed by counsel, with the petitioner left to pursue his provident fund dues with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida. ¶20

Munna Lal Yadav M.L. Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a retired ITTUP employee, is entitled to payment of his post-retiral dues (earned leave, gratuity and employees' provident fund), whose non-payment is the grievance raised in the writ petition. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The stand taken in the counter affidavits of respondent no.2 and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 clearly shows that the amounts due to the petitioner towards earned leave and gratuity have been paid to him.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Insofar as the dues of employees' provident fund are concerned, necessary papers have already been countersigned and it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter with the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida for payment of the said dues.

¶17

Key takeaways

Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the dues towards leave encashment and gratuity had been paid in their entirety, and that the petitioner was pursuing his claim for employees' provident fund dues with the concerned authority.ratio¶18
Having regard to the facts, and as jointly agreed by counsel for the parties, no further direction was required to be passed and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a superannuated employee of the Institute of Tool Room Training, U.P. (ITTUP), who retired on 30.07.2008, seeking payment of post-retiral dues. The counter affidavits of respondent no.2 and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 showed that dues towards earned leave and gratuity had been paid, including Rs. 10,333/- by cheque dated 08.08.2014, Rs. 19,623/- by cheque dated 07.04.2017, and gratuity of Rs. 59,935/- (15.06.1999 to 31.07.2008) and Rs. 81,541/- (30.10.1982 to 14.06.1999). As regards employees' provident fund, the requisite papers had been countersigned and payment lay within the domain of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida. Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the payments and was pursuing the PF claim with the concerned authority. As jointly agreed by counsel for the parties, no further direction was required; the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4197 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Munna Lal Yadav M.L. Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Goyal,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Nisheeth Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

¶7

The present petition has been filed principally raising a grievance with regard to the non-payment of the post retiral dues of the petitioner.

¶8

The facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was an employee of the Institute of Tool Room Training, U.P. (ITTUP), and he retired on 30.07.2008 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

¶9

It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 that the ITTUP was established as a production-cum-training centre by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. As regards the payment of the petitioner's post retiral dues, necessary particulars of payments made to the petitioner, have been furnished. The relevant extracts from the counter affidavit are as follows:

¶10

"11. That consequent upon the retirement of the petitioner, the ITTUP, Lucknow had paid the amount towards earned leave and gratuity for the period he worked to render service at Lucknow and remaining amount of earned leave and gratuity has been paid by ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing through cheque no. 006152 dated 08.08.2014 for a sum of Rs. 10,333/- sent to the General Manager of ITTUP, Lucknow, Incharge Officer of the Institute (Noida-Greater Noida Wing). Similarly the ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing vide letter dated 07.04.2017 has sent a cheque of Rs. 19,623/- to the petitioner towards amount payable in lieu of leave earned by the petitioner while working at Noida-Greater Noida Wing. True copies of letter dated 16.08.2014 and 07.04.2017 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-1 & CA-2 to this counter affidavit.

¶11

That as per the record the other post retirement dues i.e. payment of gratuity for the period from 15th June 1999 till 31st July 2008 amounting to Rs. 59,935/and for a period from 30.10.1982 till 14th June 1999 amounting to Rs. 81,541/have already been paid to the petitioner.

¶12

That the petitioner is a member of Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the deduction of salary towards provident fund, deducted from the petitioner and the equal amount contributed by the employer is in the form of trust with Regional Provident Fund commissioner, as such for the said amount the petitioner has approached the said authority, as already informed by ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing, the petitioner after getting his PF and pension papers contersigned

¶13

took it back with a promise to come back but instead of depositing these papers in the office of Project Manager, Noida-Greater Noida, he has directly deposited the same in the office of Regional Provident Fund commissioner, Noida. Accordingly, he has to approach the said authority for further action.

¶14

x x x x x

¶15

That in reply to the contents of paragraph 22 of the writ petition it is submitted that as per the information furnished by ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing the petitioner after getting his PF and pension papers countersigned from ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing promised to come back but instead of deposit the same to the office of Project Manger, ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing, it appears to have directly deposited the same in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida and ITTUP, Noida-Greater Noida Wing vide letter dated 20^th August 2014 has reminded the Commissioner, Provident Fund, Noida about non-payment of provident fund and pension to the petitioner. it is not out of place to mention here that the amount of provident fund remains in trust with Regional Provident fund commissioner, Noida, as such its payment and pension is in the domain of the said authority. The answering respondent has absolutely no control thereon."

¶16

A similar stand has been taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.

¶17

The stand taken in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, respectively, clearly shows that the amounts due to the petitioner towards earned leave and gratuity have been paid to him. Insofar as the dues of employees' provident fund are concerned, it is stated that necessary papers in regard to the same have already been countersigned and it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter with the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida for payment of said dues.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the dues towards leave encashment and gratuity have been paid to him in their entirety and that he is pursuing his claim with regard to payment of the dues of employees' provident fund with the concerned authority.

¶19

Having regard to the aforementioned facts, and as jointly agreed by the counsel for the parties, no further direction is required to be passed in the present writ petition.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.2.2020

¶22

Imroz

¶23

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)

Munna Lal Yadav M.L. Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Yadav M.L. Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Pal Vs Director (Personal) Central Warehousing Corporation, Warehousing Bhawan and Another

Babu Ram Dinkar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Nihore Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.