2026:UHC:1472 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 1157/2022 WPSS 1162/2022 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Subhash Chand Burman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 3 and 7 (in WPSS/1157/2022) died during pendency of writ petition, therefore their legal heirs need to be brought on record and for that purpose, an application (IA/4/2024) seeking substitution is filed. There is delay of 191 days in filing the substitution application. Although State has filed objection to the delay condonation application (IA/3/2024), however for the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay is condoned. Substitution application is also allowed. Amended memo of parties be filed within 24 hours. (3) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1157 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed here. (4) Petitioners served against different Group ‘C’/’D’ posts in Government Press, Roorkee and they retired after attaining the age of superannuation. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply the Government Order dated 7.4.2011 and 1.7.2013 and the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) for regular satisfactory service of 6 year, 16 years second finance up-gradation as they completed 26 years of service regularly satisfactorily and they may be 2026:UHC:1472 granted third promotions or implementation of ACP from 1.9.2008 the third financial up gradation may also be given to them. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in place of Rs. 4600/-.” (5) Learned State Counsel refers to para 4 of the counter affidavit for contending that all the petitioners were given benefit of three financial upgradation, therefore the prayer made by them is unsustainable. (6) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the averment made in the counter affidavit is not correct inasmuch as petitioners were not given three financial upgradation, as alleged. However, learned Counsel fairly concedes that petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit, therefore the stand taken in para 4 of the counter affidavit remains unrebutted. (7) Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to approach the competent authority by making representation. Upon receipt of representation, the competent authority shall examine whether petitioners were given three financial upgradation and if he finds that three financial upgradation were not given to petitioners, then he will look into the matter and pass necessary orders as per applicable policy. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 9.3.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198 d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FC A58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.10 10:20:48 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1472