Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8958 (UTT)

S N TRIPATHI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/362/2021 · 2025-03-05

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Vivek Bharti Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1525-DB SL. No . Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB No. 362 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 4. Petitioner was serving as Assistant Engineer in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam and he retired on 31.03.2003. According to him, he is entitled to benefit of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016, however, same was given to him only w.e.f. 01.11.2018. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged Government Order dated 15.10.2018. In paragraph no. 6 of the said Government Order, it is mentioned that benefit of revised pension would be admissible to the State employees w.e.f. 01.11.2018. Petitioner has challenged the said condition mentioned in Government Order dated 15.10.2018. 5. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam has produced in Court Government Order dated 10.12.2019, whereby earlier Government Order dated 15.10.2018 was modified, and it was provided that 2025:UHC:1525-DB the benefit of revised pension / family pension would be admissible to retired employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced in Court another Government Order dated 18.12.2024, issued by Additional Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Uttarakhand, which is taken on record. He submits that despite the policy decision taken by the State Government to grant benefit of revised pension / family pension to retired employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016, the said benefit has not been given to petitioner so far. 7. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that since the huge financial liability is likely to be fastened upon Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, therefore, the matter is under consideration before the competent authority. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to petitioner to approach the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, by moving a representation for claiming benefit of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016. If petitioner makes such representation, within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, within four months from the date of receipt of such representation. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.03.2025 Navin