The Court refused to adjudicate anew on the claim for salary revision benefits post-VRS, observing that the controversy was already settled by a prior judgment in WPSS No. 85 of 2018. The petition was disposed of applying the earlier decision.
The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 03.03.2021 in WPSS No. 85 of 2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 631 of 2023
Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sadaf Gaur, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of instant petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit to the petitioners as per the Office Memorandum dated 29-12-2016, whereby the Government of Uttarakhand has revised the salary of workers of Kissan Sehkari Chini Mill Ltd. Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, w.e.f. 01-10-2015 (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition).
2
3
petition required respondents to file counter affidavit. It has yet not been filed.
“2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working in the Kisan Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd.,
4
Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short “the mill”) on various posts. The mill was closed w.e.f. 30.09.2015 and an option was given to the workers either to opt for voluntary retirement scheme (for short “VRS”) or they may be transferred/adjusted in other cooperative/public sector sugar mills. The petitioners opted for VRS and it was so sanctioned w.e.f. 31.10.2015. It is the case that on 29.12.2016, the Government of Uttarakhand revised the salary of the workers in Sugar Mill w.e.f. 01.10.2015 but the petitioners have not been given the benefit of it. To the extent of obtaining the benefit of the office memorandum dated 29.12.2016, the instant writ petition has been filed.”
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.06.2023
Jitendra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant petition requires further adjudication given the existence of a prior judgment settling the controversy.
Whether the petition should be disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment dated 03.03.2021 in WPSS No. 85 of 2018.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harish Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersFollowed¶19
WPSS No. 85 of 2018, Harish Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
Special Appeal No. 147 of 2021Followed¶19
Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai and others
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
