2026:UHC:2953 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/604/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of pension to him. In this writ petition, he has challenged order dated 11.03.2020, passed by Executive Engineer, Jal Vigyan Ikai, Bahadarabad, whereby his representation claiming pension was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the year 1971 and he served in the muster roll establishment of Irrigation Department in that capacity up to the year 1992; petitioner’s engagement was thereafter discontinued by an oral order, against which petitioner raised industrial dispute, and learned Labour Court decided that dispute in favour of the petitioner and provided for petitioner’s reinstatement, but without back wages. 4. He submits that State filed Writ Petition No. 1429 of 2012 (MS), challenging the award rendered by learned Labour Court, which was disposed of by providing that instead of 2026:UHC:2953 reinstatement in service, petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakh. He thus contends that petitioner has to be treated as a Government employee between 1971 till he attained the age of superannuation and is thus entitled to pension also. 5. Learned State Counsel, per contra, submits that petitioner’s status was that of a daily wager and as per his own showing, petitioner did not render any service after 1992. He submits that coordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding the writ petition, filed by the State, provided that petitioner will not be entitled to reinstatement, but shall be entitled only to compensation amounting to Rs. 3.00 lakh. It is thus contended that since petitioner never served regularly and his status also was not that of a regular employee, therefore, petitioner do not meet the condition of eligibility for pension, as prescribed in the applicable rules; therefore, petitioner’s claim for pension is not based on any statutory provision or Government policy and he is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 7. Admittedly, petitioner’s status was of a daily wager, which also got discontinued in 1992, even though learned Labour Court 2026:UHC:2953 provided for petitioner’s reinstatement; however, that direction was modified by coordinate Bench in a writ petition and instead of reinstatement, it was provided that petitioner shall be given monetary compensation. 8. In such backdrop, petitioner’s claim for pension appears to be without any legal basis. Thus reliefs as claimed cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.04.2026 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=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b0 8923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9E A4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.23 19:53:08 +05'30'