HUKUM SINGH RAWAT v. UTTARAKHAND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
WPSS/1174/2025 · 2025-07-15
Ravindra Maithani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9012 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9012 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2025 (S/S)
Hukum Singh Rawat
….......Petitioner Vs. Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation and another …………… Respondents
Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-
“I. To issue writ, rule or direction in nature of Certiorarified- Mandamus to declare the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 in league with order dated 25.05.2022 as annexure no.1 and 2 to the petition as arbitrary, irrational and contrary to law and quash the same along with its effect and operation also after calling the entire record and quash the same so far as it direct for refixation and for recovery of the excess amount from the gratuity of the petitioner in tune of Rs.3,07,980/- keeping in view the fact highlighted in body of the petition or to mould the relief appropriately to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. II. To issue writ rule of direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to forthwith release the amount a sum of Rs.3,07,980/- in favor of the petitioner together with 18 percent interest thereon in view of the fact highlighted in the body of the petition had it been the impugned order were never in existence. III. To pass such order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper regarding the circumstances of the case. IV. Award costs of the petition.”
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deduction has been made from the retiral dues of the petitioner without proper authority. He submits that the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.06.2022, passed by this Court in WPSS No.1593 of 2021, Balam Singh Aswal Vs. Managing Director and others, and connected cases.
4.
Learned counsel for the respondents admits this fact.
5.
Since, the matter is covered, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 14.06.2022, passed by this Court in WPSS No.1593 of 2021, Balam Singh Aswal Vs. Managing Director and others, and connected cases.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.07.2025 Sanjay