Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1794 (UTT)

MALKEET SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/873/2026 · 2026-04-06

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2379 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/873/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. 2. Petitioner served as Constable in Civil Police. He was dismissed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence for more than 02 years. 3. Petitioner challenged his dismissal by filing a Claim Petition, which was allowed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.10.2024. Learned Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the authorities, to initiate fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner, as per law. 4. According to petitioner, he was reinstated in terms of Tribunal judgment vide order dated 15.03.2025; however, his pay has not been fixed at appropriate level; his further grievance is that arrears of salary have also not been paid to him. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrear of salary w.e.f. June 2008 till the date of reinstatement and further passed an order for fixation of the salary of the petitioner.” 2026:UHC:2379 5. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. On instructions, Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned Brief Holder submits that petitioner did not discharge duties for more than 07 years, and he was guilty of unauthorised absence; even though learned Tribunal has allowed his Claim Petition, however, in view of the liberty granted to authorities, fresh departmental proceeding has been initiated against petitioner, which is pending. Thus he submits that before conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated, relief as claimed by petitioner, cannot be granted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner be permitted to make representation raising his grievance. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation regarding his grievance to the competent authority. If he makes representation within 10 days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within 03 months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18 b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9 EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.06 17:03:58 +05'30'