RANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has produced before this Court, a copy of the instructions dtd. 8/11/2022 which encloses a letter dtd. 7/11/2022 sent to the Assistant Regional Manager, Karmik saying that Rs.21,820.00 has been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 93582, dtd. 7/11/2022. The A.C.P. could not be given to him because of adverse entries in his service record for the year 2005, 2008, 2009 and 2015 and for his remaining unauthorizedly absent for 558 days. The A.C.P. would have been available to him only on 2/10/2016, but the petitioner has been removed from the service on 30/5/2015. With regard to the gratuity, the said letter mentions Cheque No. 006695 dtd. 5/11/2022 making payment of Rs.1,15,595.00. Insofar as leave encashment dues are concerned, the petitioner was removed from service on 30/5/2015 and his unauthorized absence has been regularized, therefore, no leave encashment is admissible to the petitioner. The EPF formalities have been completed and the papers have been sent to the Employees Provident Fund Organization Office at Kanpur and EPF dues are directly made available by the EPF Organization to the employee concerned and it is an account to account transfer, for which the respondents cannot be held responsible except for processing papers which they have done. Copies of Cheques received by the petitioner and also photographs of the petitioner receiving the such Cheques have been enclosed alongwith the letter.

(3.) Copy of instructions produced before this Court by Sri Vivek Saran are kept on record.