20 February vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1341 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

20 February vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2026:UHC:1144
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
       Writ Petition Service Single No. 503 of 2026
                        20 February, 2026
Anita Devi                                              --Petitioner
                               Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Ors.                       --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
     Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for petitioner.
     Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned D.A.G. for the State of
     Uttarakhand.
     Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent
     No.3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Petitioner was appointed in the year 1996-97 with respondent No.3 on contractual basis and thereafter, her services were regularized vide order dated 26.09.2012 as Assistant Field Supervisor, and, since then, she has been discharging her duties as Assistant Field Supervisor with respondent No.3.

2. It is the grievance of petitioner that despite having put in more than 13 years of service, she is getting the same pay since 2012, when she was sanctioned Pay Scale of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs.1900/-. Petitioner is entitled to get regular service benefits and the benefit of ACP and 7th Pay Commission as well.

3. It is further submitted by petitioner that petitioner has not been paid her salary of the Financial Year 2016-17 for 11 months. The writ petition has filed by petitioner for a writ of mandamus.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner confined the prayer that petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation to Competent Authority and Competent Authority shall also be directed to decide the said representation, if filed within stipulated period.

2026:UHC:1144

5. This prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for respondents.

6. In such view of the matter, this Court proposed to decide the writ petition finally. It is provided that petitioner may make representation to the Competent Authority through respondent No.3 within two weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If such representation is made by petitioner, Competent Authority shall decide the same by speaking order, within eight weeks' from the date of receipt of representation, strictly in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 PN