Uttarakhand High Court
With vs Prem Ram And Others on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1343-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
26TH FEBRUARY, 2026
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 25 OF 2026
WITH
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION (IA No. 01/2026)
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Appellants
Versus
Prem Ram and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants. : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra & Mr. K.K. Harbola,
learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing
3. Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Counsel for respondent no. 4. : Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned CGSC for the
Union of India.
JUDGMENT :(per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 01/2026)
1. The instant intra-court appeal is reported to be beyond time by 152 days. The cause shown for the delay is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant intra-court appeal. SPECIAL APPEAL No. 25 OF 2026
2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2025, 1 2026:UHC:1343-DB passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 303/2024, whereby the Writ Petition filed by non-appellant no. 1-Prem Ram (hereinafter referred to as the "writ petitioner"), challenging a communication dated 08.10.2020, issued by the State, informing the petitioner that his name would not be included in the Government Employees' List, on account of the fact that in District Champawat their existed only one sanctioned post of Assistant Accountant, and which was held by Devendra Patni, and that upon his retirement, the said post stood dissolved, being part of a dying cadre, and for further relief for grant of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues, has been allowed.
3. The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk by order dated 03.12.1985 in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh. In the select list, the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 1, whereas name of Devendra Patni was at Serial No.3. It seems that, at the time of division of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ petitioner as well as Devendra Patni opted for the State of Uttarakhand. On 10.07.2006, the appellant communicated its consent, allotting Devendra Patni to the State of Uttarakhand, while the matter relating to the writ petitioner remained pending. Ultimately, the request of the writ petitioner was allowed by the Advisory 2 2026:UHC:1343-DB Committee and he was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. On 08.04.2015, the writ petitioner was granted posting on the vacant post of Assistant Accountant in DRDA, Champawat. He was granted all financial benefits, as were available to a regular employee. The writ petitioner, ultimately, retired from the said post.
4. The State, in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, took the stand that the services of employees of DRDA were regularized by Government Order dated 31.12.2023. However, the writ petitioner joined the service in the State of Uttarakhand on 08.04.2015, therefore, his service was never regularized. It is stated that, as the post of Assistant Accountant in DRDA has been declared as dying cadre, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits.
5. The learned Single Judge has considered the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit, and has, thereafter, returned the following findings :-
"18. The petitioner at no point of time had denied for his regularization. He was not called for being regularized in any cadre. If an action was taken in the year 2013 for taking certain employees as Government employees and/or if petitioner's name is not included by the State of Uttarakhand in that list, for it, the petitioner may not be blamed. The petitioner was allocated the State of Uttarakhand. The Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, by its communication dated 08.04.2015, posted him on the vacant post of Assistant Accountant, which means, there was a post vacant there, when he was posted. If any post, thereafter, declared as 3 2026:UHC:1343-DB dying cadre, the petitioner may not be denied benefit of the position, which he has held. After working for more than three decades, the State of Uttarakhand may not be permitted to say now, that for the reasons, as alleged hereinbefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension."
6. Learned Single Judge has also noted the fact that Devendra Patni, who was at Serial No. 3 in the select list, while the writ petitioner at Serial No. 1, had already been granted all pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge has observed that the writ petitioner cannot be put to any detriment on account of the fact that the matter, relating to allocation of his service to the State of Uttarakhand, got delayed, and, after he was posted in the State of Uttarakhand, no fresh regularization exercise was held. The learned Single Judge has observed that the State itself admits that it had regularized the services of the employees, including Devendra Patni, who came to be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, at the initial stages of the formation of the State. The learned Single Judge has further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continue service shall 4 2026:UHC:1343-DB not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
2. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service."
7. Learned State Counsel is unable to show how the findings recorded by learned Single Judge are, in any manner, illegal or perverse. As it is not in dispute before us that Devendra Patni, who was appointed, along with the writ petitioner, was duly regularized, and was also paid pension, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. The Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 26th February, 2026 Rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI RAHUL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66 e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, PRAJAPATI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19 2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4 898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.02.26 16:44:41 +05'30' 5