Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2780 (UTT)

G. R. CHUNERA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/401/2017 · 2025-03-18

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1834-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 401 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner retired from the post of Chief Pharmacist from Government District Hospital, Bageshwar on 31.10.2016. Since he was not paid 10 percent of the amount payable as GPF, therefore, he has filed this writ petition in the year 2017, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding the respondents that they shall pay 10% arrears of GPF along with gratuity as well as other admissible post retiral dues to the petitioner forthwith along with 18% interest thereof. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding the respondents that they shall pay 300 days leave encashment amount to the petitioner along with 18% bank interest. 4. Today when the matter is called out, learned State Counsel has produced in Court written instructions dated 12.12.2017 received from Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Bageshwar, which is taken on record. Perusal of the same reveals that all the pending dues of the petitioner have been cleared. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits at the bar that the 2025:UHC:1834-DB pending dues of the petitioner have been cleared and now nothing remains due. 5. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he has lost contact with his client, therefore, he is not in a position to make any statement. 7. Having regard to the statement made by learned State Counsel, the writ petition is dismissed, as infructuous. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.03.2025 Aswal