Uttarakhand High Court
With vs Satish Chandra Maithani on 22 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:6455-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
22 July, 2025
Special Appeal No.527 of 2018
With
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/9575/2018)
Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam and Another --Appellants
Versus
Satish Chandra Maithani --Respondent
And
Special Appeal No.528 of 2018
With
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/9572/2018)
Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam and Another --Appellants
Versus
Suraj Singh Pokhariyal --Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Presence:-
Mr. B.S. Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra and Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the
respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
There is delay of 78 and 85 days respectively
in filing these special appeals.
2025:UHC:6455-DB
2. Objection to delay condonation applications
has not been filed by respondents. For the reasons
indicated in the affidavits filed in support of delay
condonation applications, the same are allowed and
delay in filing these special appeals is condoned.
3. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel submits
that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of
respondent in connected SPA No.528 of 2018 also; he is
permitted to file his vakalatnama in the Registry during
course of the day.
4. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these special appeals, therefore, they are
heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Special Appeal No.527 of 2018, alone are being
considered and discussed.
5. Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam has filed this intra-
court appeal challenging final order dated 07.03.2018
passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.1010 of
2014. The impugned judgement is extracted below:-
"The respondent-Nigam has taken conscious
decision to grant Assured Carrier Progression (ACP) to
the employees, who have completed requisite
qualifying service. Though, the decision was taken on
01.01.2012 but as per clause contained in the
decision, the notional benefits were to be granted to
the employees benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
The petitioner had retired on 30.11.2009 after
01.09.2008. He was eligible to be granted notional
benefit w.e.f. 01.09.2008 as per decision dated
01.01.2012.
In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the
petitioner would be granted notional benefits
alongwith consequential benefits i.e. pensionary
/retiral benefits:
2025:UHC:6455-DB
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with
the direction to the respondents to grant notional
benefits alongwith consequential benefits i.e.
pensionary/retiral benefits to the petitioner w.e.f.
01.09.2008, within a period of ten weeks from today.
Pending application; if any, stands disposed of."
6. Learned counsel for appellants submit that
respondent (Satish Chandra Maithani) retired from post
of 'Sanganak' on 30.11.2009 and as per decision taken
by Board of Directors on 13.01.2012, the actual benefit
of ACP was to be given to employees of Uttarakhand Pey
Jal Nigam w.e.f. 01.01.2012, however, notional benefit
was made admissible to them from due date. Thus, he
submits that since respondent retired on 30.11.2009,
therefore, direction issued by learned Single Judge to
grant him consequential benefits, including retiral dues,
is unsustainable.
7. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant. In the order dated
24.01.2012 (enclosed as Annexure No.3 to the writ
petition) issued by Director (Finance), Uttarakhand Pey
Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, it is provided
that the scheme of ACP shall be made effective from
01.01.2012, although notional benefit may be given
from due date.
8. Since in Government Order dated 30.11.2011
there was a stipulation that decision regarding grant of
ACP has to be taken by Board of Directors and Board of
Directors of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam in its meeting
held on 13.01.2012 decided to grant ACP only w.e.f.
01.01.2012, therefore, direction issued by learned
Single Judge to grant consequential benefits is
interfereable. Thus, we set aside the direction issued by
2025:UHC:6455-DB
learned Single Judge to grant consequential benefits on
account of grant of ACP notionally w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
9. Thus Special Appeal is partly allowed.
10. Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam shall compute
benefits which respondent is entitled to in terms of the
decision taken by Board of Directors, within three
months from the date of receiving a certified copy of
this order and admissible benefits shall be released to
the respondent within three months thereafter.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
22.07.2025
SS
SUKHBANT Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6
SINGH
380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D7
2C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.07.24 10:23:02 +05'30'
