2025:UHC:9424 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/647/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. A punishment order was passed against the petitioner in April, 2013, whereby he was reduced from the rank of Development Officer (Grade–I) to Development Officer (Grade–II). He thereafter retired on 31.01.2018, and all this while, he accepted the reduced salary paid to him in terms of punishment order. 4. Now, nearly after five years of his retirement, he has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as retired from the post of Development Officer Grade-I, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Govt. Of India undertaking), Divisional officer, Moradabad. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to give full pension and its arrear, as well as, arrears of the full gratuity, provident funds and other benefits to the petitioner for the Development Officer Grade-I. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make repayments of the illegal recovery of non core benefits and deceased increments which are null and void in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent 2025:UHC:9424 is right in submitting that petitioner is indirectly challenging the punishment order after ten years. He submits that the relief, as claimed by petitioner cannot be granted, without considering the validity of punishment order. He submits that since petitioner’s pay scale was downgraded to that of Development Officer (Grade–II), therefore, his claim for pay scale, admissible for the post of Development Officer (Grade–I), is wholly misconceived. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since punishment order has been passed against the petitioner in 2013, therefore, without challenging the said punishment order, the relief, as claimed by petitioner, cannot be granted. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 27.10.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d136951 2ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.10.27 05:22:14 -07'00' 2025:UHC:9424