CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 02 UK CK 0074

Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ · Alok Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 64 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 364 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) Issue notice.

Learned counsels for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appear and accept notice.

2) In view of the order we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

3) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the following relief :

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to pay the contribution of Provident Fund & Gratuity calculated on the basis of salary of Rs.21,000/- per month for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2021, based on which the respondent No. 6 has paid to him.”

4) The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/B) No. 153 of 2021, which was disposed of on 19.07.2022, with a direction to the respondent-College to pay to the petitioner his salaries and all the allowances admissible to him for the contractual period ending on 30th June, 2021 without any deductions whatsoever. The order had to be complied with within one month. The said order dated 19.07.2022 of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2022, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19257 of 2022.

5) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not fully complied with the order, inasmuch as, certain amounts have been released to him, but he has not been given the computation, nor provided the basis for the computation of the amount. The petitioner claims that further amounts are due to him from the said respondents.

6) Since, we have already redressed the grievance of the petitioner while issuing directions in the earlier round of litigation, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to examine the representations of the petitioner (annexed as Annexures 7 and 8 to this petition), and to respond thereto with a reasoned order, within four weeks. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 shall also provide to the petitioner the detailed computation, and the basis for computing the dues payable to the petitioner.

7) The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.