Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/1064/2018 on 21 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6362-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. or directions
Date COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No. and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SPA/1064/2018
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. Mr. Rahul Verma, Additional Advocate
General for the State/appellants.
2. Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate holding
brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the
respondents.
3. This is Delay Condonation Application
CLMA No.20146 of 2018 filed by the
State/appellant for condoning the delay of 384
days in filing the appeal.
4. In view of reasons indicated, delay is
condoned. Delay Condonation Application
stands allowed.
5. This intra-court appeal is filed by the
State challenging the final order dated
03.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in
WPSS No.2843 of 2017. Operative portion of
impugned judgment is reproduced below:-
"It is, therefore, the prayer of learned
counsel for the petitioner that these petitions be
decided in terms of aforesaid judgments. Learned
Deputy Advocate General fairly conceded that the
controversy in hand is covered by the above
noted judgments.
The above noted writ petitions are
accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
decisions."
6. The writ petitioners (respondents herein)
2025:UHC:6362-DB
were engaged in Work Charge Establishment of
Irrigation Department and their services were
subsequently regularized. Many of them were
retired before filing of the writ petition. The
writ petition was filed by the respondents,
seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus declaring the provisions of Article 370
of the CSR Regulations so far as it provides for
non-inclusion of services rendered in work-
charged establishment including the clause 8(ii)
of definition clause 3 of U.P. Retirement benefit
rules, 1965 for the purpose of qualifying service
for pension as unconstitutional and against the
provisions of law and declare the same as void
and struck down the same along with its effect
and operation also and directed to the State
Government to delete the same from the statute
book.
(ii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to treat the
petitioner as permanent and in regular service
keeping in view of his continuous service against
the posts and permanent work and to qualify
them as permanent in view of the provisions as
highlighted in the body of the petition and allow
them all benefits of pension along with all
consequential benefits and interest thereon had it
been the provisions of CSR Regulations 370 was
never in existence.
(iii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus to award suitable compensation of
Rs.10.00 lacs to each of the petitioner for the
constitutional tort of the respondents depriving
the petitioner from his legitimate right in terms of
Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act."
7. Writ petition was disposed of by learned
Single Judge in terms of judgment rendered by
another Single Judge in WPSS No.1647 of
2016. State has come up in appeal against the
2025:UHC:6362-DB
said order.
8. Since the order impugned in this appeal is
a consent order and it has been passed based
on a statement given by learned Deputy
General on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said consent order.
9. In such view of the matter, present
appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.07.2025 21.07.2025
Rajni
RAJINI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484
48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f1
GUSAIN
7d01342, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B
4DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F5306
16A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.07.22 11:14:19 +05'30'
2025:UHC:6362-DB
