Allowed

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation v. Praveen Kumar Singh (P.K. Singh) Son of Shri Surendra Pal Singh

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2022SAW/350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the directions activating cost against the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation were set aside on the condition that the corporation pays Rs. 5 lacs to the retired respondent by 31.03.2022.

What did the court decide?

The appellant corporation directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the respondent by 31.03.2022 on pain of revival of the cost order.

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 350/2021

¶3

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Prayatan Bhawan, Iiird Floor, Opposite Vidhayakpuri Police Station, Sanjay Marg, M.i. Road, Jaipur.

¶4

Executive Director, Finance Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Prayatan Bhawan, Iiird Floor, Opposite Vidhayakpuri Police Station, Sanjay Marg, M.i. Road, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Praveen Kumar Singh (P.k. Singh) Son Of Shri Surendra Pal Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Plot No. 105 Ii, Shanti Nagar B, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

16/02/2022

¶13

This appeal is filed by the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation to challenge an order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.16191/2019 filed by the present respondent.

¶14

The original petitioner had retired on superannuation from the Tourism Development Corporation with effect from 30.09.2016. There being no pension scheme in the corporation his entitlements post retirement were gratuity, leave encashment and provident fund. The grievance of the petitioner is that nearly six

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SAW-350/2021]

¶17

years after his superannuation, he has not been paid his retirement benefits. Though he has calculated his gratuity at Rs.11,23,407/-, his counsel agreed that as per then prevailing law of gratuity he was entitled to a sum of Rs.10 lacs. He has also calculated leave encashment benefit of approximately Rs.5,40,900/-. So far the petitioner has been paid a total sum of about Rs. 3 Lacs by the employer. The petitioner therefore has filed the writ petitioner claiming all his unpaid benefits. In the said petition on 19.03.2021 the learned Single Judge has passed the order imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- on corporation for giving a date for filing the reply. It was recorded that the corporation has not filed reply inspite of Court’s directions passed on 21.10.2019.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the appellant-corporation submitted that the order was not served on the corporation and the name of the original respondent was not shown when the previous order was passed. We are prepared to accept this explanation offered by the counsel for the corporation. The harsh reality however is that a retired employee nearly six years after the retirement has not been paid the retirement dues. As noted there is no pension scheme in the corporation for a retired employee of the corporation. Therefore his post retiral benefits such as gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment funds are the only source for him to support his family. Such inaction or inability on the part of the corporation to release even the rightful dues of the retired employee therefore cannot be tolerated. Under the circumstances while disposing of the appeal it is provided that the corporation shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs directly to respondent latest by 31.03.2022. On this condition, direction for payment of cost contained in the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 is set aside. It

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-350/2021]

¶21

is clarified that if this condition is not fulfilled the said order and the requirement of depositing cost shall automatically revive.

¶22

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶24

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶25

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/16

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation v. Praveen Kumar Singh (P.K. Singh) Son of Shri Surendra Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation v. Praveen Kumar Singh (P.K. Singh) Son of Shri Surendra Pal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushp Raj S/O Shri Jeeva Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S M.K. Exim (India) Limited Vs Union of India

Union Bank of India Vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Tansukh Paliwal S/O Chhagan Lal Paliwal Vs Rajasthan High Court

Harlal S/O Shri Gouru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Shanti Devi Wife of Shri Narayan Mali