Disposed¶7

Ranveer Singh Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Common judgment disposing of six identical service-side writ petitions – WPSS 949, 950, 951, 954, 955 and 956 of 2026

Uttarakhand HC8 Apr 2026WPSS/954/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Old Pension Scheme; OPS; Pharmacist; Ayush Department; Uttarakhand; Writ Petition (S/S); WPSS 949/2026; WPSS 950/2026; WPSS 951/2026; WPSS 954/2026; WPSS 955/2026; WPSS 956/2026; Manoj Kumar Tiwari; decided 8.4.2026; no advertisement 1991 to 2000; 30.9.2000 advertisement; 550 vacancies; State of U.P.; State reorganisation; re-advertised 29.11.2005; age relaxation; selection held in 2005; appointment in 2006; Government Order dated 7.11.2023; writ of mandamus; fresh representation; competent authority; decision within four months; representation within ten days; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make fresh representations (within ten days); decision thereupon by the competent authority, as per law, within four months thereafter. ¶7

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSS 949/2026
WPSS 950/2026
WPSS 951/2026
WPSS 954/2026
WPSS 955/2026
WPSS 956/2026
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional CSC, for
the State.

(2)
Since the issue involved in all
these writ petitions is identical, therefore,
these are being heard and decided together
by this common judgment. However, for
brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 949
of 2026 alone are being considered and
discussed here.

(3)
Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Pharmacist in Ayush Deparment of the
State on 8.6.2006. Since benefit of Old
Pension Scheme has not been given to him,
therefore, he has filed this writ petition
(4)
Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contends that vacancies on the post of
Pharmacist in Ayush Deparment was not
advertised between 1991 to 2000; on
30.9.2000, State of U.P. advertised 550
vacancies on the said post, however due to
State
reorganisation,
selection
process
could not be brought to its logical end and
after creation of State of Uttarakhand,
vacancies
were
re-advertised
on
29.11.2005. It is contended that since the
vacancies were old and the advertisement
was
also
issued
in
2005,
therefore,
candidates, who had applied pursuant to

Ranveer Singh Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranveer Singh Panwar 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

Pradeep Singh Bhauryal Constable No. 3554 Vs Deputy Inspector of P.A.C. Police Headquarter

Matwar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary Education

Rajesh Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Singh Kotwal Vs Badrinath Kedarnath Temple Committee

Virendra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manisha Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand