UKHC010012562018 2026:UHC:5782 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2212/2018 Abhaya Prakash Upadhayay --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Finance Department and others --Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. This writ petition was filed in 2018 seeking the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.9.17 (annexure-1) passed by respondent no. 4 only to the extent so far it relates to direction for making payment of gratuity of petitioner to respondent no. 3 instead of respondent no. 1. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 & 2 to make payment of gratuity amount of petitioner with interest from the date of retirement of petitioner.” 4. Registry had pointed out two defects, however, defects have not been cured so far even though time was given to petitioner for that purpose. 5. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He contends that direction to pay gratuity to petitioner has to be issued to the State of Uttarakhand and the Controlling UKHC010012562018 2026:UHC:5782 Authority has erred in law in directing the M.K.P. College, Dehradun to release the amount payable as gratuity. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that, the fact that defects pointed out by the Registry on 03.08.2018, have not been cured so far indicates that petitioner must have received the amount payable as gratuity. 7. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Petitioner is unrepresented even today, which indicates that he has lost interest in the matter due to supervening events. 8. Even otherwise also, if petitioner is of the opinion that instead of M.K.P. P.G. College, State Government should have been directed to release the amount of gratuity to him, then petitioner could have moved appropriate application before the Controlling Authority. 9. Thus, this Court do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.07.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.07.15 10:01:02 +05'30'