IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 1259 of 2001 (S/S) (Old No. 43860/2000) Banta Prasad S/o Sri Ram Prasad Junior Clerk/Salesman, Rajkiya Viklang Karmshala, Evam Utpadan Kendra, Chamiyala, District Tehri Garhwal. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through secretary, Viklang Kalyan Vibhag, Lucknow. 2. The Director, Viklang Kalyan Vibhag, U.P. at Lucknow. 3. The Zila Viklang Kalyan Adghikari, Nainital. 4. Adhikshak, Rajkiya Viklang Karmshala Evam Utpadan Kendra, Haldwani, District Nainital. 5. Adhikshak, Rajkiya Viklang Karmshala Evam Utpadan Kendra, Chamiyala, District Tehri Garhwal. 6. Smt. Gyan Devi, Adhikshak, Rajkiya Viklang Karmshala Evam Utpadan Kendra, Haldwani, District Nainital. 7. Sri Deep Chandra Pant, the then Zila Viklang Kalyan Adhikari, Nainital at present posted at Observatary, Nainital. …. Respondents. Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel for respondents. HON’BLE RAJESH TANDON. J. 20.02.2006. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Beena Pandey counsel for respondent -2- no. 1 and 2 and Standing counsel for respondent no. 3 to 7. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay Rs. 58,188,/- to the petitioner along with 24% interest. Briefly stated, the petitioner is working as Junior Clerk/Salesman at Rajkiya Viklang Karmshala Evam Utpadan Kendra Chamiyala, District Tehri Garhwal. The grievance of the petitioner is that problem started from January 1998 when the respondent no.6 joined as respondent no.4 in Chamiyala, District Tehri Garhwal. Viklang Kendra Haldwani, he started interfering with the work of the employees and he did not permit the petitioner to sign the attendance register. However, when a complaint was made by the petitioner, the respondent no.6 was annoyed and ultimately that resulted for the non payment of the dues to the petitioner. The petitioner has given a detail of the amounts due to him at Annexure 13 to the writ petition which comes to Rs. 58,188/-. The same is quoted below: -3- **1- twu 99 ls tuojh 2000 rd dk vo’ksi osru & 50]503-00 2- ekg tuojh 99 ls ebZ 99 rd egWxkbZ HkRrs dk vo’ksi & 1]892-00 3- Qjojh 2000 ls flRkEcj 2000 rd osru o`f) ,fj;j & 824-00 4- LFkkukUrj.k ;k=k HkRrk fcy Qjojh 2000 & 4]969-00 & gY}kuh ls ifj;k=k fVgjh x<oky rd dk ---------------------------- 58]188-00 --------------------------** At the time of the admission of writ petition the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit on 16-10-2000 but no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner, therefore submitted that without any fault, the respondent with held his payments. On 1-3- 1999 the Deputy Director issued an office order to the following effect: Dk;kZy; Kki izk;% ;g ns[kk tk jgk gS fd laLFkk/;{kksa }kjk vius v/khuLFk deZpkfj;ksa ds lsok lEcU/kh ekeys tSls fpfdRllk vodk’k] vftZr vodk’k] th0ih0,Q0 ,oa izksUur osrueku lEcU/kh o vU; ekeys funs’kky; esa dbZ eghuksa i'pkr LohÑfr gsrq izsfir fd;s tkrs gSA ;g fLFkfr vR;Ur fuUnuh; gSA vr% leLr lEcfU/kr laLFkk/;{kksa dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd deZpkfj;ksa ls lEcfU/kr ekeys izkfIr ds ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj fu;ekuqlkj iw.kZ fooj.k lfgr funs’kky; Hkstk tkuk lqfuf’pr djs rFkk Hkfo"; esa Hkh ,sls ekeyksa dks ns; frfFk ds ,d lIrkg ds vUnj gh funs’kky; dks Hkstuk lqfuf’pr djsA foyEc ls izkIr gksus okys ekeyksa ds fy;s lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh gh mRrjnk;h gksxsA** -4- It may be pointed out that on 4-10-2000 there is a recommendation also for discharging the payment of the petitioner. The said recommendation is mentioned below: ^^ vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd mDr lECkU/k esa vius Lrj ls ekxZ n’kZu djus dk d"V djsa ftlls Jh cUrk izlkn lsYleSu ds yfEcr ns;dksa dk Hkqxrku le;kUrxZr fd;k tk ldsA** The petitioner has already made a representation on 1-6-2000. The said representation had not been considered by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, is directed to file a copy of representation dated 1-6-2000. The said representation shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the filling of the certified copy of the order. In case the respondents consider that the payment of the petitioner has been unnecessarily with held, the officer who has with held the payment of the petitioner shall be responsible for the payment of interest also on the amount which has been with held by the officer concerned. However, in any case the petitioner shall be entitled for the entire payment due to him within a period of 2 weeks thereafter after the adjudication of the claim of the petitioner along with interest @ 18%. -5- The petitioner has submitted that some payments have already been made in his favour, the said payment which have already been made will not be calculated again and again so far as the entire payment is concerned or for the purposes of interest is concerned. Subject to above observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tondon. J) 20-02-2006 Negi