IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 832 OF 2008 (SS) Vijendra Singh …..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl.Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 12th May, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of Kishan Sahkari Chini Mill / respondent no. 2 and after his retirement, the petitioner was not given his post retirement benefits such as Gratuity, Provident Fund and Leave Encashment. Hence, he has filed this writ petition. In counter affidavit, the respondent no. 2 had admitted all its liability as claimed by the petitioner. However, so far as the gratuity is concerned, the same has been given to the petitioner – a fact which has been admitted by the petitioner. At present which remains is the Provident Fund and the Leave Encashment dues to the petitioner. Since, the liability has been admitted by the respondent no. 2, there is no reason whatsoever for keeping the writ petition pending. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions: The claim which the petitioner makes against the respondent and which are admitted by the respondent, must be given effect to and the respondents must give 2 the entire provident fund and the leave encashment dues to the petitioner within three months. With this directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) 12.5.2009 Rathour