2025:UHC:3444-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 617 of 2018 5 May, 2025 Director Industries & others. --Appellants Versus Gayatri Chauhan. --Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Addl. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand /appellant. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT In this Appeal, State has challenged the judgment and order dated 09.03.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 120 of 2012. The impugned judgment is extracted below:- “Petitioner was appointed as Trainee. Her services were terminated. She was re-engaged vide order dated 18.07.1987 on the monthly salary of Rs.300/-. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 31.05.1998. She raised the industrial dispute. Learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the petitioner. The termination order was set-aside. The respondent-State has taken a plea before the Labour Court that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis. This plea was repelled by the Labour Court. 1 2025:UHC:3444-DB The State has assailed the Award before this Court by way of WPMS No.2356 of 2001. It was dismissed on 26.07.2005 as not pressed. In other words, the Award has attained finality. Petitioner has worked for 24 years. She has been denied retiral benefits to which she was entitled as per the law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay and released the retiral benefits to the petitioner including GIS, LIC, gratuity etc. by counting her 24 years qualifying service, within a period of ten weeks from today.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that petitioner was never given regular / substantive appointment and she remained a contractual employee, all through till she completed age of superannuation. He submits that the pensionary benefits are payable to the State employees as per the provisions contained in Civil Service Regulations, however, provisions of this Regulation were not considered by the learned Single Judge. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment is unsustainable, as relevant provision of law was not considered. 3. We find substance in the said submission. There is no reference to the Civil Service Regulations or any other statutory provision dealing with the pensionary benefits to State employees, in the impugned judgment. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. We, accordingly, allow the Appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and direct the Director, Directorate of Industries, Uttarakhand (respondent no. 1 in the writ petition) to sympathetically consider respondent’s case for 2 2025:UHC:3444-DB pension in the light of relevant statutory provisions, including Regulations 361, 368 & 370 of Civil Service Regulations and other statutory provisions contained in Retirement Benefits Act, within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.05.2025 Navin 3 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A1038 19DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2 1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.05.06 17:21:45 -07'00'