Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5006 (UTT)

PREM CHAND SHARMA v. GENERAL MANAGER UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION DEHRADUN

WPSS/589/2024 · 2026-05-08

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3541 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/ 5 8 9 / 2 0 2 4 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-Uttarkahand Transport Corporation. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to directing the respondents to release the balance amount of salary, retiral dues as well as the gratuity and pension to the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to directing the respondents’ authorities to make the payment of Rs. 84,766/ - (Eighty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Sex Rupees), to the petitioner with interest 14% interest. 4. In para 5 of the writ petition, petitioner has alleged that he has received gratuity amounting to ₹6,60,279/-, but balance amount of gratuity i.e. ₹84,766/ - is yet to be paid to him. 5. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Manoj Kumar Durgapal, Assistant General Manager (Personal), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Nainital, where it is stated that petitioner had approached Assistant Labour Commissioner, Haridwar 2026:UHC:3541 under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the same relief, and Assistant Labour Commissioner passed an order on 08.12.2023, holding that petitioner is entitled for balance gratuity amounting to ₹6,959/- with 10 percent simple interest. He further submits that this fact has been suppressed in the writ petition and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 6. This Court though finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact, however, this Court is anyhow restrained from imposing heavy cost upon the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is, however, dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 08.05.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a0 8b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DA CF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.05.08 02:10:30 -07'00'