SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/990/2025 With WPSS/991/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. 2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 990 of 2025 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered. 3. Petitioners were appointed in erstwhile U.P. State Road Transport Corporation before State reorganisation. Their services were subsequently transferred to Uttarakhand Transport Corporation upon State reorganisation. 4. According to the petitioners, other employees of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation were given benefit of pay revision in terms of 6th Pay Commission report w.e.f. 01.01.2006; however, actual benefit was given to them only w.e.f. 01.01.2012. By means of Writ Petition No. 990 of 2025 (SS), petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to implement the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission as per Government order dated 2.2.2010 issued by respondent no.1 and to give the benefit of the same to the petitioners by given notional benefit of 6th Pay Commission from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2009 and thereafter to given the benefit of the same from 1.10.2009 instead of 1.1.2012 to the petitioners. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to re-calculate the arrear of salary from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2009 notionally and thereafter. implementing ACP in the salary of the petitioners and to give the actual benefit such as arrear of salary and retiral dues like arrear of payment of gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues to the petitioners along with admissible interest upon the entire dues upto the actual payment.” 5. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation submits that petitioners have sought writ of mandamus without making a formal demand before the competent authority. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners be permitted to make representation for the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to the competent authority in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation in respect of their demand. If they make representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, as per law, within four months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.02.2026 Mahinder/