AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
In this case, the Petitioner was an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Tanakapur. He has not received his post retiral dues, hence, he filed the present writ petition.
Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the same is taken on record.
Supplementary affidavit, which has been sworn by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Tanakapur stating therein that there is an account in the name of the District Magistrate, Champawat in which the pension of the employees of the Nagar Palika Parishad is being disbursed. He failed to show this Court that this system is being adopted under which provision of law.
In view of this, Nagar Palika Parishad being a local body having a constitutional status should not be depended upon the District Magistrate for his routine day to day functions unless there is such a provision in the law which the counsel is failed to show this Court.
The District Magistrate is directed to file his personal affidavit to this effect as to under which provision of law Employees Pension Fund Account No. C.A.I 10831016376 has been opened at S.B.I. Champawat and as to why such money has not been disbursed.
List this petition on 19th October 2011 in the daily cause list.