20 February vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1340 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

20 February vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2026:UHC:1139
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition Service Single No. 494 of 2026
                        20 February, 2026
Shivkumar
                                                        --Petitioner
                               Versus

1: State of Uttarakhand
2: Director General
3: Director
4: Additional Director Of Education
5: Headmaster
                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M C Pant with Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. Ganga S. Negi, learned Addl. CSC for the State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by respondent no.4-Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Division, Pauri whereby the session benefit given to the petitioner has been withdrawn/cancelled.

2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2025. When the session benefit was not given to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing WPSS No.756 of 2025 and it is only after the intervention of this Court, the session benefit was extended to the petitioner which was to come to an end on 31.03.2026 i.e. end of the academic session 2025- 2026. In between, certain complaints have been made by respondent no.5- Headmaster of the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Ramnagar, Roorkee against the petitioner about insubordination to respondent no.4.

2026:UHC:1139 Respondent no.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the complaints made by respondent no.5, cancelled the session benefit given to the petitioner by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a representation has been made by the petitioner to the respondent no.3-Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand dated 31.12.2025 which is Annexure No.11 requesting to withdraw the cancellation order and permitting petitioner to continue the session benefit till the end of academic session 2025-26 i.e. 31.03.2026. The said representation is still pending disposal with respondent no.3. It is also contended by petitioner that reminders have also been sent to the authorities but the representation is still undecided.

4. An innocuous prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3 may be directed to decide the representation within a stipulated period in accordance with law.

5. There is no opposition from the State if such order to decide the representation is passed by this Court.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent no.3-Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand is directed to decide the petitioner's representation within 15 days from today strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other stake holders.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 R.Dang