AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of CWP No. 3035 of 2008 and CWP No. 2912 of 2009 as common question of law is involved in both the petitions.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that petitioner was appointed as peon on 10.1.1966 in respondent No.2 and after serving 40 years, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005. On 27.9.2005 the respondent No.4 had sent a letter to respondents No.2 and 3 that on account of superannuation of petitioner some amount was due to petitioner which included salary from November 2004 to October 2005 RS. 1,01,084/-, gratuity RS. 1,28,848/- and leave encashment RS. 78,090/- total amounting to RS. 3,08,022/-. THE petitioner had retired on 31.10.2005 but the petitioner has not been paid any retiral benefits. THE petitioner made several representations, lastly petitioner had issued notice dated 21.10.2008 to the Secretary, State Social Welfare Board, Shimla with copy to respondents No.3 and 4.

(3.) THE petitioner had been working as Peon under the scheme of Family and Child Welfare Project and was thus under the direct administrative control of respondent No.2. THE State Government is releasing grant-in-aid to respondent No.2 every year for implementation of the scheme in accordance with the available budget. THE State had released an amount of RS. 36.50 lacs as grant-in-aid to respondent No.2 for running Family and Child Welfare Projects during the year 2006-07. THE issue of releasing gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner pertains to respondent No.2 only. THE matter regarding extension of retiral benefits to the State Welfare Board's staff had been taken up with the State Government and the State Government after obtaining the prior concurrence of the Finance Department had approved to extend the gratuity benefits to the staff of the State Social Welfare Board with the condition that the expenditure incurred will be borne by the Board within its sanctioned grants. THE respondent No.1 has ultimately stated that the State Government cannot be held responsible for non-releasing of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner.