Disposed¶2

Arun Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 May 2025WPSB/242/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applications MCC Nos.4 and 5 of 2025 in WPSB Nos.241, 242 and 245 of 2021, disposed on 15.09.2025 by Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Ashish Naithani, JJ. Writ petitions earlier decided on 07.05.2025 with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioners' representation regarding increment benefits; authority declined the benefits. Court held that the review applicants are not precluded from filing a fresh writ petition despite having earlier filed similar writ petitions. Keywords: review application, MCC, WPSB, increment, fresh writ petition, preclusion.

What did the court decide?

Observation that the review applicants shall not be precluded from filing another writ petition seeking similar benefits. ¶2

Arun Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			MCC No.4 of 2025 (Review Application) In WPSB No.242 of 2021 With MCC No.5 of 2025 (Review Application) In WPSB No.241 of 2021 With MCC No.4 of 2025 (Review Application) In WPSB No.245 of 2021 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners through VC.
			2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
			4. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
			5. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
			6. These writ petitions were decided by this Court vide judgment dated 07.05.2025 with a direction to the competent authority to take a decision upon the petitioners’ representation within a period of four months. 7. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submits that competent authority has already taken a

¶2

decision not to grant the benefits of increment. He further submits that the order sought to be reviewed will come in the way of petitioners for filing a fresh writ petition.
8. Having regard to the facts of the case, the review applications are disposed of with the observation that the review applicants shall not be precluded from filing another writ petition, simply for the reason that earlier also they had filed the writ petitions seeking similar benefits.
(Ashish Naithani, J) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 15.09.2025 NR/Akash

Arun Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gabar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ram Bahadur Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand Vs Prem Singh Negi

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shambhu Dayal Shah Vs State of Uttarakhand

Akhilesh Kumar Verma Vs Chairman and Managing Director