Disposed

Manju Rani Holkar v. State of Uttarkahnad

Uttarakhand HC24 Dec 2024WPSS/216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought counting of full service from 1990 to 31.03.2021 for pension and gratuity and payment of all retirement dues. Both counsel agreed the matter was covered by a Division Bench judgment in State of Uttarakhand v. Balraj Singh Negi; writ petition disposed of in terms of that judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 10.04.2024 in Special Appeal No. 940 of 2018.

Manju Rani Holkar Vs State of Uttarkahnad — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

2024:UHC:9908

¶2

SL. No.	Dat e	Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS No. 216 of 2021 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Though Video Conferencing) 1. Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
			2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take into account the entire length of service i.e. 1990 to 31.03.2021 for calculating the amount of pension and gratuity. (ii)) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide all retirement dues including gratuity and GPF along with interest for delay thereto to the petitioner.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 940 of 2018 ‘State of Uttarakhand and Others Vs. Balraj Singh Negi, and connected cases’. 5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, who appears for the respondent- State, on instructions, also fairly submits that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 6. After hearing the submissions and statements given by learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.940 of 2018 ‘State of Uttarakhand

¶3

2024:UHC:9908

¶4

and Others Vs. cases’.	Balraj Singh Negi, and connected
Ujjwal	(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.12.2024

Manju Rani Holkar v. State of Uttarkahnad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Rani Holkar v. State of Uttarkahnad

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

Rajesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harish Chandra Dhaulakhandi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sonu Alias Suhaib Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shankar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kunwar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dev Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand