Disposed

Sohan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2019WPSS/431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by Group 'D' employees of the Sericulture Department seeking benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. Finding the prayer innocuous, the court directed the Competent Authority to decide on the submitted representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Competent Authority to decide on the petitioners' representations within eight weeks.

Sohan Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 2926 of 2018 WPSS No. 431 of 2018 WPSS No. 432 of 2018 WPSS No. 433 of 2018 WPSS No. 436 of 2018 WPSS No. 437 of 2018 WPSS No. 438 of 2018 WPSS No. 440 of 2018 WPSS No. 441 of 2018 WPSS No. 443 of 2018 WPSS No. 446 of 2018 WPSS No. 448 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Heard Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Seema Sah, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3

Petitioners in these writ petitions are working on a Group ‘D’ post of Keetpalak in Sericulture Department of the State Government since last more than 25 years. They are claiming benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. According to which, certain benefits are to be given to every State employees upon completion of 10 years, 16 years and 26 years of satisfactory service.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sericulture Department is a part of Horticulture Department and Directorate of both the Departments is common. He further submits that co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided similar controversy in respect of Group ‘D’ employees i.e. Malies serving in Horticulture Department vide judgment dated 11.01.2019 passed in WPSS No. 136 of 2019 & other connected petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have made representation to the Competent Authority, however, no decision has been taken on the representation(s) submitted by them.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer and submits that Competent Authority may be directed to take a decision on petitioners’ representation(s). Prayer made is innocuous, therefore, is worth accepting.

¶6

¶7

Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representation(s) to respondent No. 2, within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made respondent No. 2 shall examine the same and take decision in the matter, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of such representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶8

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.)

¶9

06.05.2019 Aswal

Sohan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamleshwar Prasad Saklani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shatrughan Jha Vs State and Another

Vivekswaroop Srivastava Vs Smt. Jyoti

Arjun Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary, Department Of Silk and Others

Naveen Chandra Pant Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ruchi Verma Vs Union Of India and Others