HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 702 of 2025 (S/S) Sunita ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that she ought to have been given appointment by the respondent department w.e.f. 12.04.2017, which they differed by filing a delayed special appeal and thereby denied the benefits of service, etc. to the petitioner for a quite long period. The petitioner seeks salary and other benefits for that period. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. The petitioner’s husband was working with the respondent no.2 department on Daily Wagers since 1982. His services 2 were discontinued; on which, he took legal recourse and by the order of this Court, he was reinstated. But, before he could join, he died on 24.10.2011. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. She was denied. The petitioner did file a writ petition bearing WPSS No.1972 of 2013, Sunita vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (“first petition”), which was allowed on 12.04.2017. But, the petitioner was still not given the appointment by the respondent no.2. They preferred a delayed Special Appeal No.1086 of 2017, which was decided on 14.03.2022 and, thereafter, the petitioner was given appointment on 07.04.2022. Now the petitioner claims that she should be given service benefit w.e.f. 12.04.2017 when the first petition was allowed by this Court till she joined on 07.04.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to inaction on part of the respondent no.2, the petitioner was not given appointment pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2017, passed in the first petition thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed a delayed special appeal, which was also dismissed. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to get salary and other 3 service benefits from 12.04.2017 till she joined the service. 5. This argument has no merit for acceptance. The judgment of SPA No.1086 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand and another Vs. Sunita (“special appeal”) dated 14.03.2022 is on record. The delay condonation application filed in the special appeal was dismissed and consequently, the special appeal was also dismissed. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2022, passed in the special appeal, the Court has not passed any such directions that the petitioner is entitled to service benefits, etc. with effect from the date when the first petition was allowed. Therefore, in a separate proceeding such matter cannot be even considered. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 30.04.2025 Sanjay