Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/923/2021 on 29 July, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.923 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via video conferencing).
Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional CSC,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The briefly put up the case of the
petitioner is that he was appointed in the Forest
Department, in the Tehri Garhwal Division, as
back as in the year 1985, as a daily rated
employee. He submits that later on, the
respondents considered the satisfactory services
rendered by the petitioner, and his services
were regularized on the post of Regional
Assistant by an order of 04.04.2013.
After having attained the age of
superannuation, the petitioner contends that he
retired from his services of the respondents on
28.02.2020. However, the grievance which has
been raised in the writ petition, by the
petitioner, is to the effect that the pensionary
benefits is not being considered and granted by
the respondents on the ground that he has not
completed the statutory period of regular
service of ten years, as his services were
regularized only in the year 2013, and he retired
from the service in the year 2020.
The petitioner in support of his
contentions submits that the period of services
rendered by him as a daily rated employee, has
to be taken into consideration and be included
for the purposes of determining the retiral
benefits, was an issue, which has already stand
settled by the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in a bunch of Writ
Petitions, in which leading Writ Petition is
WPSS No.722 of 2014, "Laxmi Dutt Joshi, Vs.
Principal Secretary, Forest", as decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.12.2015.
Later on, the same principle was enunciated by
yet another judgment of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.887 of
2019, "Dalbir Singh Bisht, Vs. State of
Uttarakhand", as decided on 28.11.2020,
whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the
respondents were directed by way of a writ of
mandamus to consider the claim of the
petitioner for the grant of pensionary benefits,
in accordance with law, for the purposes after
including the period of services rendered as a
daily rated employee for the determination of
the retiral benefits.
The petitioner in the present writ petition
has submitted that raising his claim, he has
already approached the respondents by way of
filing a representation on 28.11.2020, but no
decision as such has been taken on the same
and it is still pending consideration.
In view of the fact that the petitioner is a
retired employee, and is claiming for the
payment of the grant of pensionary benefits,
and petitioner has confined his prayer for
direction to the respondents to decide his
representation, this writ petition is being
disposed of with a direction to the respondent
No.2, to consider and decide the representation
of the petitioner for the redetermination of the
pensionary benefits in the light of the judgment,
on which he wants to place reliance and as
referred in the writ petition.
However, it is made clear that the
respondent No.2, would take a decision
exclusively in accordance with law, within a
period of two months from the date of the
production of the certified copy of this
judgment.
Subject to the above observations, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
29.07.2021
NR/
