Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11399 (UTT)

BIRENDRA DUTT BAHUGUNA v. UTTARAKHAND STATE CO OPERATIVE FEDERATIONLTD

WPSS/1532/2025 · 2025-09-18

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:8326 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1532/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. 3. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 3 & 4. 4. Petitioners were serving in Provincial Co- operative Federation, U.P., Lucknow, before State reorganisation, and after State reorganisation, they became employees of Uttarakhand State Co-operative Federation Ltd. 5. All the petitioners retired between 2017- 2020. According to them, they were entitled to arrears of 7th pay revision, but the same has not been given them. 6. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2024, issued by respondent no. 4, addressed to the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 8). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the arrears of 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 up to 31.03.2018, as directed by Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, addressed to the respondent no. 2, on 30.09.2024 (Annexure No. 12). 2025:UHC:8326 iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to award interest @ 18% per annum for the delayed payment from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment.” 7. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in WPSS No. 1950 of 2024, therefore, the writ petition be also decided in terms of the said judgment. 8. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 concedes that similar issue was decided the said writ petition. He further submits that present writ petition can also be decided in terms of the judgment dated 20.08.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 1950 of 2024. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 20.08.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 1950 of 2024. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb90 46f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAA B21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.18 19:42:38 +05'30'