SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 6 W it h W PSS/ 1 9 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Akram Parvez, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for Union of India. 2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 17 of 2026 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered. 3. According to petitioner, he was appointed on contract as Quality Control Manager in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL), Rishikesh in the year 2013 and he is thereafter serving continuously as such; however, he has not been paid salary since June, 2025 and authorities have now asked the petitioner not to perform duties. 4. By means of Writ Petition No. 17 of 2026 (SS), petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to forthwith release and pay the entire outstanding salary, wages and consequential service dues to the petitioner for the period from June 2025 till date. “(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service and to formally extend/continue his contractual engagement with all consequential benefits, so long as work is being taken from him, or till final settlement of his service rights, (c) Direct the Respondents to alternatively transfer or adjust the Petitioner to any other unit, department, or project under the control of the Respondents. In the interest of justice and to protect the Petitioner's livelihood. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) (Gujarat Pattern) to the petitioner on the principle of parity and non-discrimination, in the same manner as granted to similarly situated permanent employees of the respondent-organization.” 5. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for Union of India submits that he has no instructions to appear on behalf of IDPL/respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. Having regards to the facts of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDPL, Rishikesh. 7. If petitioners make representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, IDPL, Rishikesh within three months thereafter. 8. The Writ petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 06.01.2026 Mahinder/