Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Uttarakhand High Court

Mahendra Singh Rautela vs Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas ... on 19 May, 2017

Bench: K.M. Joseph, Sharad Kumar Sharma

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Writ Petition (S/B) No. 207 of 2017

Mahendra Singh Rautela                                ........Petitioner.

                              Versus
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam.
                                               ...........Respondent.

                                      with
                      Writ Petition (S/B) No. 208 of 2017

Basant Kumar Tewari                                   ........Petitioner.

                              Versus
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam.
                                               ...........Respondent.

                                      with
                      Writ Petition (S/B) No. 209 of 2017

Mohan Chandra Upreti                                  ........Petitioner.

                              Versus
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam.
                                               ...........Respondent.

                                      with
                      Writ Petition (S/B) No. 214 of 2017

Pooran Chandra Joshi                                  ........Petitioner.

                              Versus
Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam.
                                                ...........Respondent
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                        Dated: 19.05.2017

Coram:         Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

[ K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These matters being connected, we are disposing of the  same by this common judgment.  

2

  

2.  The petitioners in all these cases are the retired employees of  the  Respondent‐Corporation.  The  complaint  is  that  their  retiral  benefits  have  not  been  disbursed.  They  rely  on  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Writ  Petition  (S/B)  No.  494  of  2015  and  connected  cases.   

 

3.  We heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel on behalf of  the petitioners and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel on behalf of the  respondent‐Corporation.   

 

4.  Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent‐Corporation  would  point out that there is financial stringency. He would also submit  that  a  communication  has  been  sent  by  the  Corporation  to  the  Government on 12.04.2017 pointing out the financial position. He  further  submits  that  an  amount  of  Rs.  40  crores  has  already  been  released but the total liability would be about Rs. 83 crores.    

5.  Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of  these writ petitions by directing as follows:   

(i)  Within  a  period  of  two  months  from  today,  the  amount  of  leave  encashment  will  be  paid  to  the  petitioners.  
 
(ii)  Within a period of five months from today, the amount  due by way of commutation of pension will be paid to  the petitioners.  
3
(iii)  The balance amount due by way of other benefits will  be  paid  to  the  petitioners  within  a  period  of  seven  months from today.  
 
 

          (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)                   (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)               19.05.2017                                           19.05.2017  Rahul