Disposed¶6

Amit Juyal v. Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

Service – contractual employee

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2026WPSS/1169/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court service writ WPSS/1169/2026 (decided 02.05.2026, Rakesh Thapliyal, J.): contractual NRHM Block Programme Manager at CHCs/PHCs, Dunda, District Uttarkashi denied FY 2010-11 remuneration increment granted to similarly situated District/State Programme Managers; petition disposed of with liberty to seek decision on representation from respondent No. 1 within four months; no statute or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No. 1 (if made within two weeks from the order, to be decided as per law within four months thereafter); no substantive increment directed by this order. ¶6

Amit Juyal Vs Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:UHC:3324

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/1169/2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
			2. Petitioner was engaged on contract basis for discharging duties as Block Programme Manager in National Rural Health Mission in CHCs/PHCs, Dunda, District Uttarkashi in the
			year 2010, and he is still serving in that capacity.
			3. According to petitioner, other similarly
			situated employees, including District
			Programme Manager and State Programme Manager were given benefit of increment in remuneration during Financial Year 2010-11; however, that benefit has not been given to the petitioner. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to give increment to him for Financial Year 2010-2011.
			5. Learned State Counsel submits that although benefit of increment is available only to regular employees, but, if what petitioner
			says is correct, then he can approach the competent authority.

¶3

2026:UHC:3324

¶4

6.	The writ	petition is, accordingly, disposed
of	by per	mitting petitioner to make
repr	esentation	to respondent No. 1. If petitioner
mak	es represe	ntation to respondent No. 1 within
two	weeks fro	m today, decision thereupon shall
be	taken as	per law, within four months
ther	eafter.
Mahinder/		(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.05.2026

Amit Juyal v. Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Juyal v. Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

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

Vishwa Kant Pandey Vs Manav Bharati Society Dehradun

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

In the Matter of Sms Paryavaran Ltd. through Its Director Mr Sudhir Narayan Rao Modak Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhuwan Chandra Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Naveen Kumar Dhyani Vs Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

Afifa Vs State of Uttarakhand