CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Jagdish Chand Thakur vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 February 2024 · Citation: (2024) 02 UK CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J · Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 46 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 346 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no. 1 to grant benefit of replacement scale to the petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 01.03.2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for the purposes of refixation of their pension.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner in view of Government decision contained in Government order dated 01.03.2009 (Annexure no. 2 to writ petition).

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may think deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the Cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2.

Heard Mrs. Shruti Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

Today, Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the State, has filed a letter dated 17.02.2024 of the Director School Education Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

4.

Ms. Shruti Joshi, Advocate, has sought one week’s period from today to move a representation before the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, the respondent no. 2, to avail the benefits of the Government Order No. 74 dated 01.03.2009. She has requested to decide the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner’s representation.

5.

Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel has sought four weeks’ time to decide the representation of the petitioner.

6.

With the consent of both the parties, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 that in case the petitioner moves a representation within a period of one week from today, the same shall be decided within a period of four weeks’ from the date of presentation of the representation.

7.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.