SUMIT KUMAR v. UTTARAKHAND COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS FEDERATION LTD
WPSS/1160/2024 · 2026-01-05
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5043 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5043 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:153 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 1 6 0 / 2 0 2 4 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi & Mr. Milind Raj, Advocates for the petitioner.
2. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the respondents.
3. Petitioner was given appointment as seasonal unskilled worker on compassionate ground, vide order dated
2.9.2017. According to the petitioner, his father was serving as Seasonal Cane Clerk, which falls in the category of ‘skilled worker’, therefore, he was entitled for compassionate appointment as skilled worker.
4. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows: -
“I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to give regular appointment to the petitioner as Seasonal Skilled Worker pursuant to the
order dated 02.09.2017 offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner as Seasonal Daily Wager/ Unskilled employee.”
5. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is a ban imposed by the State Government on fitment, vide order dated 12.6.2018. Thus, he submits that the petitioner’s fitment cannot be done as skilled worker in view of the ban imposed by the State Government.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground
2026:UHC:153 was given before imposition of ban by the State Government, therefore, the ban would not apply in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is not claiming fitment and he is simply seeking the rightful benefit, which he is entitled to, as per the applicable policy.
7. Since petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus, but, he has not made any representation, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Chief Manager of the sugar mill concerned within two weeks. If petitioner makes representation within stipulated time, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within three months thereafter.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
5.1.2026
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=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da8 2a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF 56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.05 17:53:48 +05'30'