[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
With vs Prem Ram And Others on 26 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1343-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
26TH FEBRUARY, 2026
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 25 OF 2026
WITH
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION (IA No. 01/2026)
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Appellants
Versus
Prem Ram and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants. : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra & Mr. K.K. Harbola,
learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing
3. Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Counsel for respondent no. 4. : Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned CGSC for the
Union of India.
JUDGMENT :
(per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 01/2026)
1. The instant intra-court appeal is reported to be
beyond time by 152 days. The cause shown for the delay is
found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Office is directed to
allot a regular number to the instant intra-court appeal.
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 25 OF 2026
2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2025,
2026:UHC:1343-DB
passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 303/2024, whereby the Writ
Petition filed by non-appellant no. 1-Prem Ram (hereinafter
referred to as the "writ petitioner"), challenging a
communication dated 08.10.2020, issued by the State,
informing the petitioner that his name would not be included
in the Government Employees' List, on account of the fact that
in District Champawat their existed only one sanctioned post
of Assistant Accountant, and which was held by Devendra
Patni, and that upon his retirement, the said post stood
dissolved, being part of a dying cadre, and for further relief for
grant of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues, has been
allowed.
3. The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of
Junior Accounts Clerk by order dated 03.12.1985 in the
undivided State of Uttar Pradesh. In the select list, the name
of the petitioner was at Serial No. 1, whereas name of
Devendra Patni was at Serial No.3. It seems that, at the time
of division of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the writ petitioner as
well as Devendra Patni opted for the State of Uttarakhand. On
10.07.2006, the appellant communicated its consent, allotting
Devendra Patni to the State of Uttarakhand, while the matter
relating to the writ petitioner remained pending. Ultimately,
the request of the writ petitioner was allowed by the Advisory
2026:UHC:1343-DB
Committee and he was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand.
On 08.04.2015, the writ petitioner was granted posting on the
vacant post of Assistant Accountant in DRDA, Champawat. He
was granted all financial benefits, as were available to a
regular employee. The writ petitioner, ultimately, retired from
the said post.
4. The State, in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ
Petition, took the stand that the services of employees of
DRDA were regularized by Government Order dated
31.12.2023. However, the writ petitioner joined the service in
the State of Uttarakhand on 08.04.2015, therefore, his service
was never regularized. It is stated that, as the post of
Assistant Accountant in DRDA has been declared as dying
cadre, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to
pensionary benefits.
5. The learned Single Judge has considered the stand
taken by the State in the counter affidavit, and has,
thereafter, returned the following findings :-
"18. The petitioner at no point of time had denied for his
regularization. He was not called for being regularized in any
cadre. If an action was taken in the year 2013 for taking
certain employees as Government employees and/or if
petitioner's name is not included by the State of Uttarakhand
in that list, for it, the petitioner may not be blamed. The
petitioner was allocated the State of Uttarakhand. The
Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, by its communication dated
08.04.2015, posted him on the vacant post of Assistant
Accountant, which means, there was a post vacant there,
when he was posted. If any post, thereafter, declared as
2026:UHC:1343-DB
dying cadre, the petitioner may not be denied benefit of the
position, which he has held. After working for more than
three decades, the State of Uttarakhand may not be
permitted to say now, that for the reasons, as alleged
hereinbefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension."
6. Learned Single Judge has also noted the fact that
Devendra Patni, who was at Serial No. 3 in the select list,
while the writ petitioner at Serial No. 1, had already been
granted all pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge has
observed that the writ petitioner cannot be put to any
detriment on account of the fact that the matter, relating to
allocation of his service to the State of Uttarakhand, got
delayed, and, after he was posted in the State of Uttarakhand,
no fresh regularization exercise was held. The learned Single
Judge has observed that the State itself admits that it had
regularized the services of the employees, including Devendra
Patni, who came to be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand,
at the initial stages of the formation of the State. The learned
Single Judge has further relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v.
Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004,
wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take
the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and
thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by
the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to
pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to
take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services
continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an
employee who has rendered 30 years continue service shall
2026:UHC:1343-DB
not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a
welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken
such a stand.
2. In the present case, the High Court has not
committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary
benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering
more than 30 years service."
7. Learned State Counsel is unable to show how the
findings recorded by learned Single Judge are, in any manner,
illegal or perverse. As it is not in dispute before us that
Devendra Patni, who was appointed, along with the writ
petitioner, was duly regularized, and was also paid pension,
we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. The Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
______________________
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 26th February, 2026
Rahul
RAHUL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66
e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A19
2FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4
898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2026.02.26 16:44:41 +05'30'
