Udal Ram Khatkar v. Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-Operative Federation Ltd.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4514 OF 2021 • Udal Ram Khatkar, S/o Late Chand Ram Khatkar, aged about 63 years (Retired Manager), R/o Post Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-Operative Federation Ltd., through its Authorized Officer, Village Urla, Post BMY Charoda, P S. Charoda, District Durg (CG) 2.

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Krishi Pashudhan Vikash, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26/08/2021 1.

Ignoring the defaults pointed out by the Office in the present Writ Petition, the matter was finally heard at admission stage itself with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties.

2.

Grievance of Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seems to be the non-releasing of difference of payment of gratuity in the light of the upper sealing in the Payment of Gratuity Act being enhanced from Rs.10 Lakh to Rs.20 Lakh. Another relief which Petitioner is claiming for is the arrears of the annual increment, pursuant to which he became entitled for the revision of pay scale which has been given effect to with effect from 1.1.2016 onwards.

3.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that as per the directions of this Court he has already sought instructions from the Department and it has been informed that there is no dispute so far as the entitlement of Petitioner is concerned and that, except for the paucity of

funds, the Petitioner would be paid the entire amount at the earliest after due verification and calculation as regards the entitlement part. 4.

Given the said submission by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, what needs to be appreciated at this juncture is that the Petitioner stood retired about more than 21⁄2 years ago. The period of 21⁄2 years is quite a long time for any retired employee to receive his post retiral benefits. The entitlement of Petitioner fructified before his retirement. It is not a case where the benefits have accrued subsequent to his retirement and in spite of that waiting for more than 21⁄2 years for clearance of his retiral dues is quite some time. Paucity of funds can never be a ground for settlement of dues of a retired employee.

5.

Without further delving into the issue, this Court therefore is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition as of now can be disposed of directing the Respondents to ensure that the entire admissible dues payable to the Petitioner be cleared by Respondent No.1 positively within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which the entire amount payable shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement of Petitioner till the actual payment is made.

6.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge