2026:UHC:1747 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/ 6 8 2 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 6 9 6 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 6 9 9 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 7 0 0 / 2 0 2 6 W PSS/ 7 0 1 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for the State. 3. Since the issue involved in all these 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. 682 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed here. 4. Petitioner was appointed as Workshop Instructor in Government ITI in the year 2011. According to him, the vacancies were determined in the month of May, 2005 and thereafter vacancies were notified by the selecting body before the cut-off date i.e. 1.10.2005, therefore he is covered by Old Pension Scheme in terms of Government Order dated 7.11.2023. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a document contained as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, which is the minutes of the meeting of a committee held on 8.5.2025. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that although the vacancy against which petitioner was appointed was advertised in 2005, however that 2026:UHC:1747 selection process was scrapped and thereafter those vacancies were re- advertised in the year 2010 and in the subsequent advertisement issued in 2010, it was provided that age relaxation would be given to those candidates who had applied pursuant to earlier advertisement issued in 2005. He thus submits that the case of petitioner is not covered by Government Order dated 7.11.2023. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to the minutes of the aforesaid meeting and contends that the committee had found that petitioner’s case is covered by the aforesaid government order. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case and without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions of the parties, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to make representation to the competent authority. Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to make representation to the competent authority. If they make representation within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within four months thereafter. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 16.03.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e 4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D0 95C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.03.16 18:11:16 +05'30'