Disposed¶5

Yogember Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Apr 2026WPSS/961/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPSS/961/2026, High Court of Uttarakhand (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.), order dated 07.04.2026 — claim for ACP benefit under Government Order dated 07.09.2015 by petitioner retired in 2009 from the post of Mali in the Horticulture Department; State stand: ACP Scheme introduced in 2011, petitioner not entitled; benefit released alleged to fall short of what was due; writ petition disposed of with liberty to make representation, decision as per law within four months if representation made within two weeks; Vinoda Nand Barthwal for petitioner, Sushil Vashisth Standing Counsel for the State.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation; if made within two weeks, decision to be taken as per law within four months thereafter. ¶5

Yogember Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:UHC:2436

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order ith Sintr	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
		w gaues	WPSS/961/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is claiming benefit of ACP by relying on Government Order dated 07.09.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner retired from the post of Mali from Horticulture Department in the year 2009, but he has not been given benefit as per the aforesaid Government Order. 3. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned State Counsel refers to para 22 of the writ petition, where it is mentioned that benefit released to petitioner falls short of what was due to him. He further submits that ACP Scheme was introduced in 2011, while petitioner retired in 2009, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to benefit of ACP. 4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that if petitioner has any grievance, then he is free to approach the competent authority. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation. If he makes representation within two weeks, decision thereupon, shall be taken, as per law, within four months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.04.2026 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: 2026.04.07 20:03:33 +05'30'

¶3

2026:UHC:2436

Yogember Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogember Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dushwant Singh Vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidhyut Nigam Ltd.

Mukul Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neelam Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand

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