Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 744 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. PUNEET KUMAR JOSHI

SPA/72/2018 · 2025-05-06

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures 2025:UHC:3535-DB COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No.72 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for State of Uttarakhand/appellant. 2. Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondents. 3. State has challenged the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2835 of 2017. By said judgment dated 03.11.2017, writ petition filed by the respondents was decided in terms of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in Special Appeal No.108 of 2014. It was also observed that the controversy has been laid to rest by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Civil Appeal No.(S) 10806 of 2017). 4. The respondents were engaged in work charge establishment of State Public Works Department in different years and after rendering long years of service, they retired after attaining the age of superannuation. Since they were denied pension and other retiral benefits for the period they served in work charge establishment, therefore, they filed writ petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment. 5. State has challenged the said judgment in this appeal. Since Coordinate Bench has decided similar controversy in Special Appeal No.108 of 2014, therefore, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by Coordinate Bench. However, in view of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. State of U.P., 2019 (10) SCC 516, we provide that arrears of pension, if payable to the respondents, shall be confined to three years only before the date of the impugned judgment. 6. With the aforesaid observation, special appeal is disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.05.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.07 17:55:16 +05'30'