Disposed

Virendra Chandra Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Sept 2021WPSB/211/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee, sought writ relief for non-payment of sanctioned leave encashment and gratuity. The respondent company assured payment within four months due to financial crises. The High Court granted directions for payment with specific time limits and interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of leave encashment within three months and gratuity within four months, with 8% monthly interest for delay.

Virendra Chandra Pant Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

AND

¶7

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶8

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 211 of 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Virendra Chandra Pant. ....Petitioner

¶11

(By Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State of Uttarakhand & another. ...Respondent

¶14

(By Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent no. 1 & Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no. 2)

¶15

This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. delivered the following Judgment:

¶16

JUDGEMENT

¶17

Petitioner was an employee of Uttarakhand Payjal Nigam (respondent no. 2) and retired from the post of Chief Administrative Officer on 31.10.2020.

¶18

According to the petitioner, the amount payable to him as Leave Encashment & Gratuity has not been paid to him so far, although, it was sanctioned vide order dated 13.02.2021. Regarding other admissible dues, Mr. K.K. Harbola, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that other dues have been paid to him.

¶19

¶20

Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Payjal Nigam though admits that Leave Encashment and Gratuity are payable to the petitioner and necessary sanction for release of the dues has also been given by the Competent Authority, however, according to him, in view of the financial crises being faced by Payjal Nigam, it is not possible to immediately release the pending dues to the petitioner. He, however, assures the Court that all the dues of the petitioner would be cleared within four months.

¶21

In view of the assurance given by Mr. D.S. Patni on behalf of respondent no. 2, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶22

I. The amount payable as Leave Encashment shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today.

¶23

II. The amount of Gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from today.

¶24

III. In case of any further delay on the part of respondent no. 2 in clearing the dues, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per month.

¶25

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶26

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.)

¶27

Navin

Virendra Chandra Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Chandra Pant v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Dinesh Singh Rana Vs Stae of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prerna Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nasheema Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand