Disposed¶19

Vijay Mamgain v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Mar 2025WPSS/319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; writ petition; pay scale refixation; 6th Pay Commission; gratuity; retired dues; pensionary benefits; rejection of representation; Letter No.642/HQ/Misc.Related/2023 dated 21.12.2023; covered case doctrine; disposal in terms of earlier judgment; WPSS No.576 of 2011; Jagdamba Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand; decided 07.07.2014; clarified 26.05.2023; similarly situated employees; interest at 18% sought; Ravindra Maithani, J.; oral decision; Vijay Mamgain.

What did the court decide?

Instant petition decided in terms of the judgment passed in WPSS No.576 of 2011, Jagdamba Prasad and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (initially decided on 07.07.2014, clarified on 26.05.2023). ¶19

Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 319 of 2025 (S/S)

¶3

Vijay Mamgain and others ….......Petitioners

¶4

Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶5

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.

¶6

Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the

¶10

petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

¶11

“I. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Letter No.642/HQ/Misc.Related/2023 dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure No.1), vide which the Respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioners seeking the refixation of pay scale pursuant to the 6^th Pay Commission, regarding retired dues and gratuity as the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and bad in law along with its effect and operation also after calling the entire record from the respondent.

¶12

II. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondents to grant the difference amount of gratuity and other retired dues on the basis of refixation of pay scale as per 6^th pay commission at part of the similarly situated employees and also to direct the respondent to pay the interest at the rate of 18% on the same keeping in view the fact highlighted in the body of the petition.

¶13

III. Pass any other order(s)/directions in favour of the Petitioner which the Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶14

IV. Award the costs of the petition.”

¶15

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issue has already been decided by this Court in WPSS No.576 of 2011, Jagdamba Prasad and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was initially decided on 07.07.2014, and clarified on 26.05.2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents admit these facts.

¶19

Since, the matter is covered, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment passed in WPSS No.576 of 2011, Jagdamba Prasad and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was initially decided on 07.07.2014, and clarified on 26.05.2023.

¶20

Sanjay

Vijay Mamgain v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Mamgain 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Munendra Singh Rana and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madan Lal and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand

Aryan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mamta Saxena Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pawan Kumar Kanoujia Vs State of Uttarakhand