IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3235 of 2001 Ishwari Dutt Bhatt …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & others …..Respondents Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. H.M.Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents at length. The short contention of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that he was a Radio Inspector in the Police Department in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The short claim of the petitioner before this Court is that he reached the age of superannuation on 30.6.1998 and thereafter his pension and other post retirement benefits were fixed and the pension was given to the petitioner. All the same, on absolute misconception, the authorities deducted an amount of Rs. 23,180/- from the gratuity of the petitioner on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed to Rs. 7,300/- whereas it should have been Rs. 7,100/-. It has now been admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that this deduction from the gratuity was based on wrong calculation and indeed the salary was rightly fixed at Rs. 7,300/-. Based on this admission of the respondents that they have wrongly deducted a sum of Rs. 23,180/- from the gratuity of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. The order dated 1.2.1999 deducting an amount of Rs. 23,180/- from the gratuity of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent no. 1 i.e. the Director General Telecommunication (Police), Lucknow is directed to reimburse the amount of Rs. 23,180/- deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner along with an interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and consequently refix the pension of the petitioner within 2 a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is also directed that a copy of this order will also be served on respondent no. 5 i.e. the Senior Treasury Officer, Nainital who will cooperate in this matter and all the papers and documents relating to the petitioner shall be forwarded to respondent no. 1 as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.8.2010 Avneet