2025:UHC:8971 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 8 2 4 / 2 0 2 3 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in U.P. Co-operative Federation on 12.12.1991; upon State re-organisation, petitioner’s services were transferred to Uttarakhand State Marketing Federation, Dehradun w.e.f. 01.01.2005. She retired from service on 28.02.2017. 3. Since petitioner has not been paid gratuity in respect of the services she rendered in U.P. Co-operative Federation upto 31.12.2004, therefore, she has filed this petition, seeking following relief: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 & 2 to forthwith pay the amount of gratuity amounting to Rs. 85912/- and earned leave of 300 days i.e. Rs. 144550/- total Rs. 2,00462/- (Rupees two lacs and four hundred sixty two only) alongwith penal interest.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issue was considered by Division 2025:UHC:8971 Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 448 of 2018 (Chandra Mohan Arora Vs. Uttarakhand State Co-operative Federation Dehradun and others, therefore, this writ petition also deserves to be decided in terms of the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the said case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the judgment rendered by Division Bench has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5914 of 2020. 6. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 also supports the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the controversy has been resolved by Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 7. Mr. Prateek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, submits that an MOU was entered into between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 on 09.08.2012, according to which respondent No. 1 would be liable to pay the retiral dues of first 49 employees. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the dispute has been laid to rest by Division Bench and Division Bench judgment has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, it is not open to respondent No. 1 to 2025:UHC:8971 raise some new plea. 9. He further submits that MOU allegedly entered into between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 in 2012 cannot affect the vested right of the petitioner to get gratuity. 10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Since the question has been decided by Division Bench, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in terms of judgment dated 29.11.2019, rendered by Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 448 of 2018 (SB). (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.10.2025 Mahinder/ MAHIND ER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca 168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CD D4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.10.09 19:06:57 +05'30'