Advocates:
['SUNIL UPADHYAYA', 'KUNAL SHARMA', 'ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH', 'VIKASH ANAND']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 891 of 2016

Nawab Khan

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 893 of 2016

Sheo Raj Singh

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 894 of 2016

Harish Chandra

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 896 of 2016

S.S. Chauhan

……….Petitioner

Versus

2

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 897 of 2016

Raj Badal Yadav

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 899 of 2016

Smt. Manjeet Sethi

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 901 of 2016

Satish Chandra

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1778 of 2016

Bhagwati Prasad Agrawal

……….Petitioner

3

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1779 of 2016

Inder Pal Singh

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1781 of 2016

Prodyot Kumar Bhattacharya ……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

With

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1788 of 2016

Babu Nand Singh Yadav

……….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others

…Respondents

4

Present:- Mr. B.D. Upadhayaya, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil

Upadhayaya, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union

of India/respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for respondent no. 3/Employer.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

All the petitioners before this Court are the

former employees of a Public Sector Enterprise (in short “PSE”)

known as “Central Electronics Limited” (from hereinafter

referred

to

as

“CEL”).

Having

reached

their

age

of

superannuation, they retired from service in the PSE between

01.01.2007 to 24.05.2010.

2.

They have filed these writ petitions before this

Court, as they are being denied the “enhanced gratuity”, which

according to them, was liable to be given to them, in view of

the Office Memorandum of Government of India dated

26.11.2008, which is applicable to all PSEs and which has

been implemented in its letter and spirit by all PSEs, except

their PSE which is CEL.

3.

It would be relevant for our purposes to note that

the payment of gratuity or the revision of pay scale, with

which, we are presently concerned, is only related to Board

level and below Board level executives and Non-Unionised

Supervisors in PSEs.

4.

The short background here is that while the

petitioners were still in service, a pay revision exercise for the

employees of PSEs was underway by the Government of India.

It was being done under the chairmanship of a retired

Supreme Court Judge Justice M. Jagannadh