Disposed¶¶4

Neelam v. Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Apr 2026WPSS/922/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

2026:UHC:2403; WPSS/922/2026; High Court of Uttarakhand; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; decided 06.04.2026; Group-D employee; Pithoragarh District Cooperative Bank Limited; parity of benefits with other District Cooperative Banks in Uttarakhand; provident fund deduction; statutory contributions; medical benefits; earned leave increment; writ of mandamus; representation dated 16.03.2026; direction to Secretary/General Manager to decide representation within four months; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank concerned to take decision on the petitioner's pending representation within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order; the substantive mandamus sought on the benefits was not issued. ¶¶4

Neelam Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:UHC:2403

¶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/922/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Advocate for the Bank.
			2. Petitioner is serving as Group-D employee
			in Pithoragarh District Cooperative Bank Limited.
			3. According to her, certain benefits are not being given to her, which are given to Group-D employees in other Districts Cooperative Banks in State of Uttarakhand. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to deduct the provident fund and other statutory contributions from the salary of the petitioner and further to provide all the consequential benefits i.e. Medical, Earned leave increment etc. to the petitioner as the similar situated employees of the other District Cooperative Bank are being given.”
			4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already made representation to the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank on 16.03.2026.

¶3

2026:UHC:2403

¶4

Learned Counsel for the bank submits that decision if not taken on the representation, shall be taken within four months. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank concerned, to take decision on the pending representation within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.06 17:02:37 +05'30'

Neelam v. Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam v. Registrar Cooperative Societies 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

Pankaj Kumar Thapliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Soniya Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mansi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dushwant Singh Vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidhyut Nigam Ltd.

Mukul Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lal Chandra Vs Chairman Human Right Commission