Rishipal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 219 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                         Writ Petition (S/S) No. 140 of 2021
Rishipal Singh                                                     ....... Petitioner

                                               Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                                   ...... Respondents


Present:
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargav, Additional CSC for the State.


                                      JUDGEMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the regular pension and other retrial dues to the petitioner by calculating his entire service in the department from the date of his initial appointment.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the pensionary benefits by calculation the temporary service from the date of initial appointment in the department in the terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the judgement passed in the case of Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and on the basis of the judgment dated 02.09.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No, 1649 (S/S) of 2019 (Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and others).

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances in nature of justice and equity.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2020, passed in WPSS No. 1649 of 2019 by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the State admits that the matter is squarely covered by the Judgement dated 2nd September, 2020. According to learned counsel for the State, in addition, there is another communication dated 21.01.2015 of respondent no.2, which is annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is relevant.

5. Since the controversy is already settled, the present petition is also decided in terms of the order dated 2nd September, 2020 passed in WPSS No. 1649 of 2019.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.01.2021 Kaushal