2026:UHC:2748 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1971/2024 With WPSS Nos. 1966/2018, 1076/2022, 2005/2022, 2007/2022, 1433/2023, 1434/2023, 1496/2023, 1536/2023, 1781/2023, 1782/2023, 1784/2023, 1811/2023, 2070/2023, 2071/2023, 2072/2023, 2074/2023, 2098/2023, 2206/2023, 2277/2023, 2278/2023, 2279/2023, 2280/2023, 2281/2023, 453/2024, 456/2024, 463/2024, 566/2024, 567/2024, 700/2024, 704/2024, 707/2024, 732/2024, 733/2024, 835/2024, 983/2024, 1708/2024 and 2292/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Naman Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Kishore Rai, Advocate, Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, Advocate and Mr. Anil Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners in connected writ petitions. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition No. 1971 of 2024 (SS), Shoorbir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Shoorvir Singh in WPSS No. 1971 of 2024 was enrolled as a Soldier in Indian Army on 1989, and after rendering more than 16 years of service, he was discharged from Army on 30.09.2005. He was thereafter appointed as Constable in Uttarakhand Police w.e.f. 10.04.2006 and is still serving in that capacity in Uttarakhand Police. 3. According to petitioner, he was entitled to benefit of services rendered by him in Indian Army for pay fixation and other monetary benefits. Learned counsel for 2026:UHC:2748 the petitioner relies upon Rule 526 of Civil Service Regulations and para 410 of U.P. Police Regulations for contending that army service has to be taken into account if it is followed by State services. He also relies upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ –A No. 51 of 2026. 4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that similarly situate person, namely, Sanjay Singh filed Writ Petition No. 1966 of 2018 (SS), which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2021 and the authorities were directed to re-fix the pay scale of Mr. Sanjay Singh after including the army service in the total length of service rendered by him. However, aforesaid judgment was subsequently reviewed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025, which was affirmed by Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 33 of 2025. He thus submits that there is no statutory provision or Government Policy, which supports the case of the petitioner regarding monitory benefit for the army services rendered by him. 5. Learned State Counsel also refers to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Anil Prasad, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 112. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, disputes the submission made by learned State Counsel and submits that petitioner’s case is supported by statutory provision. He further contends that judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union 2026:UHC:2748 of India (supra) was on different set of facts, as in that case, the army personnel was claiming pay protection. 7. This Court is not inclined to go into rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Since petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus and they have also made representation to the competent authority, and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be permitted to submit fresh representation, ends of justice would be met if competent authority is given an opportunity to examine the claim staked by petitioners in the light of all issues raised by them. 8. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make separate representation to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of Uttarakhand, for claiming monetary benefits, as regards army services rendered by them. If they make such representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law, within six months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.04.2026 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=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b 08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9E A4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.17 18:22:31 +05'30'