2025:UHC:11005 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 2 4 3 5 / 2 0 2 2 W PSS 6 2 7 / 2 0 1 8 W PSS 2 5 3 9 / 2 0 1 9 W PSS 2 5 7 5 / 2 0 1 9 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional CSC, for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Ishwari Datt Paliwal, Additional CSC, for the State of U.P. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, for the development authorities. (2) Petitioners served in different development authorities within State of Uttarakhand. As per the service conditions applicable to employees of development authorities, they are not entitled to pension. A proposal was initiated by the State Government for grant of pension to such employees and information was sought from development authorities as to whether they are in a fit financial condition to bear the burden of pension. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that development authorities had given answer in the affirmative and had informed State Government that they are in a position to bear the burden of paying pension. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that State Government has again issued letters on 4.6.2025 and 16.6.2025 asking development authorities regarding their financial capacity. This, according to petitioners, is uncalled for, when development authorities have already answered the query earlier raised by the State Government in the affirmative. (3) Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel appearing for development authorities, and the State Counsel submit that since huge recurring financial liability would be fastened upon the State Government if decision to grant pension is taken, therefore, State Government is well within its right to examine all aspects of the matter before taking 2025:UHC:11005 a final call. (4) Submission made by learned Counsel for development authorities and learned State Counsel has substance, as before incurring any financial liability, State Government is expected to examine nitty-gritty of the matter. (5) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to Secretary, Housing. If they make representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within nine months thereafter. All stakeholders including Finance Department shall also be heard before passing any order. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 19:04:03 +05'30' 2025:UHC:11005