Disposed

Bishan Singh Bisht and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC3 Dec 2012WPSS/824/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court disposed this writ petition regarding pensionary benefits. Since the petitioners did not challenge the regularization date and admitted insufficient qualifying service, the court directed dismissal without an order but permitted a representation to the department to modify the regularization. Failure to file such a representation within one month would close the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make a representation within one month for modifying the order of regularization; application of such representation to pass a speaking order within eight weeks.

Bishan Singh Bisht and Anr. Vs State and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2012)

¶1

WPSS No.824 of 2004 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

¶2

Sri S.K. Posti, Advocate present for the petitioners.

¶3

Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

This writ petition was filed expressing the grievance that the writ petitioners have not been paid pensionary benefits. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that they have not rendered qualifying years of service. It appears that Petitioner No.1 has rendered less than eight years service whereas petitioner No.2 has rendered less than ten years service. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that Petitioner No.1 was regularized in his services on 24.04.1995. Second petitioner rendered services for a period less than ten years. Therefore, pensionary benefit cannot be made available. In the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that petitioners were appointed on consolidated salary and not against substantive posts. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not challenged the date of regularization. In the affidavit of rejoinder, it is stated that petitioners have rendered services for all practical purposes as regular employee and their regularization should have been made much earlier in the establishment of the State of U.P. Having regard to the fact stated in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that it is difficult for the Court to write any judgment on the issue of pensionary benefits as of toady, it is admitted position that initial appointment of the petitioner was made against regular

¶5

post. What type of appointment was given to the petitioner is not clear from the material produced before this Court. The fact remains that the date of regularization stated in the counter affidavit has not been challenged in this writ petition.

¶6

I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition without passing any order but permitting the petitioners to make a representation praying for modifying the order of regularization in the department. If such a representation is made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, Appropriate official of the department will consider the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation passing speaking order. If no representation is made within the time stipulated by this Court, the issue would be closed chapter.

¶7

The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

¶8

(K.J. Sengupta, J.) 03.12.2012

¶9

JKJ

Bishan Singh Bisht and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishan Singh Bisht and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management S.D.D.D.D.P.S.v.Ramnagar Vs State and Ors.

Laxman Singh and Anr. Vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Shakti Prasad Uniyal Vs State and Ors.

Uttaranchal Pradesiya Safai Mazdoor Sangh Vs Deputy Registrar Trade Unions and Others

Joseph Dass Vs Principal, Cni Girls Inter College, Dehradun and Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs State and Ors.