Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2617 (UTT)

LAXMI DUTT JOSHI ALIAS LAXMI DUTT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/2296/2025 · 2026-04-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2566 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/2294/2025 With WPSS/2296/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Mohit Bhauryal, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS No. 2294 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed. 4. Petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages on 19.03.1975 for discharging duties as Forest Guard and his services were regularised on 15.09.2003. Petitioner retired from the post of Forest Guard on 30.09.2012. After his retirement, petitioner was not given pension on the ground that he has not rendered minimum qualifying service of ten years, post regularisation. Petitioner filed a writ petition and pursuant to the direction in that writ petition, petitioner was given pension. 5. Petitioner contends in this writ petition that earlier he was given ₹12600+Dearness Relief as pension; however, by communication dated 04.09.2025, issued by Divisional Forest Officer, Bageshwar Forest Division, 2026:UHC:2566 Senior Treasure Officer was directed to reduce his pension to ₹9,000+DR. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter No. 1060/I-9 dated 04.09.2025 by the Divisional forest officer to Senior Treasury Officer contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any amount from the pension of the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit is filed by Mr. Aditya Ratna, Divisional Forest Officer, Bageshwar Forest Division, Bageshwar in which stand taken is that due to technical glitch in the pension software of the Department, petitioner’s pension was wrongly revised to ₹12600+DR, while he is entitled to only ₹9000+DR, as pension. 7. Para 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit are extracted below:- “(6) That in pursuance of the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 10.12.2015, the petitioner has been sanctioned the pension by treating that the petitioner had rendered 10 years qualifying service in the Department. Since, at that relevant time the details of the petitioner was filled online through IFMS portal therefore, the department instead of actual date of regularization i.e. 15.09.2003, considered the date of regularization of the petitioner as 17.09.2002 and the date of retirement as 30.09.2012 (10 years 13 days). At the time of retirement, the last pay drawn by the petitioner (basic pay) was Rs. 9650/-, consequently, the petitioner has been sanctioned the pension of Rs. 3500 + DR and the petitioner got his monthly pension regularly till 01.01.2016 without any interruption. Trud/correct typed version/copy of the Govt. Order dated 26.10.2016 and Pension Payment Order of the petitioner in 6th Pay Commission are collectively being annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this 2026:UHC:2566 affidavit. (7) That after implementation of the recommendation of 7th Pay Committee by the State, the monthly pension of the petitioner has been revised online. It is not out of context that as per the revision of pension in the 7th Pay Commission, in case the petitioner was on service his basic pay would be fixed at Rs. 25200 and on the basis of which the petitioner got monthly pension of Rs. 9000+DR, which is the minimum pay prescribed by the State Govt. However, due to technical glitch in the pension software of the Department, the pension of the petitioner has been revised to Rs. 12600+DR, instead of Rs. 9000+DR. The revision of pension to Rs. 12600+DR was done by the software taking note of date of qualifying service of 20 years, whereas the petitioner has rendered only 10 years qualifying service (actual 9 years, 15 days). True/correct typed version/copy of the details of revised pension filled online in the IFMS portal of the petitioner in 7th Pay Commission is being annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit.” 8. From the stand taken by the Department, it is revealed that petitioner’s pension was wrongly revised to ₹12600+DR due to technical glitch, and the same was subsequently corrected when this anomaly came to the notice of the Authorities, therefore, the impugned communication dated 04.09.2025, issued by Divisional Forest Officer, cannot be termed as illegal, as by the said communication a mistake was sought to be corrected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every Government Servant is entitled to 50% of his last basic pay as pension, therefore, the stand taken in the counter affidavit that petitioner’s pension has to be fixed at ₹9000+DR is not correct. He submits that there appears to be some anomaly in fixation of his pension, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the Competent Authority to correct that anomaly. 2026:UHC:2566 10. Learned State Counsel submits that if petitioner feels that his pension has not been fixed at an appropriate level and it needs to be re-fixed, then he can approach the Competent Authority by making representation. 11. While declining to interfere with the impugned communication dated 04.09.2025, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioner(s) to approach the Competent Authority by making representation(s). If he makes representation(s) within one week from today, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law, within three weeks thereafter. 12. For a period of one month or till decision is taken on petitioners’ representation(s), whichever is earlier, no recovery shall be made from them. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.04.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802 a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C2 2DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.04.09 01:42:26 -07'00'