JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working with the respondent, had retired as Chowkidar from the service on 30th June, 2017. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the payment of retiral benefits as detailed in para 7 of the writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite of the sanction being granted by virtue of the orders dated 23rd Dec., 2017 and 22nd Sept., 2017 when the retiral dues were not paid, the petitioner had submitted representation dated 10th Aug., 2018 before the authority concerned, but still, the grievance of the petitioner remained unredressed, which has resulted into filing of the present Writ petition. Details of post retiral dues, as claimed by the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition, read as under:

(3.) For the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner claims parity based on the judgment rendered in an identical Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 2905 (S/S) of 2018, Maya Ram Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another as decided by this Court on 21st Aug., 2018 as well as judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 494 of 2015, Lalita Prasad Tewari Vs. Uttarakhand Payjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, decided on 30th Nov., 2015 and also on the judgement rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 73 of 2019, Kailash Chandra Naudiyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another on 10.01.2019 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).