2026:UHC:3998 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 1 7 1 8 / 2 0 2 1 W PSS 1 7 1 9 / 2 0 2 1 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Since the issue involved in both the 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. 1718 of 2021 alone are being considered and discussed here, in which petitioners have sought the following reliefs: “I. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant without any delay with immediate effect, the benefit of time scale after computing their 10 years of service from the date of their initial appointment and release the benefit without any delay within a period as stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. II. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pensionary benefit as per the old Pension Scheme, which was in force at the time of petitioner’s initial appointment in the Nav Deep Public Junior High School Sailkhula, Deval, District Chamoli.” (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that he is not pressing prayer no. II and confining the relief to prayer no. I alone. (4) According to petitioners, they were appointed in a privately managed unaided recognised school on different dates and the school in which they were so appointed was thereafter included in the grant-in-aid list. 2026:UHC:3998 Petitioners were granted benefit of selection grade and promotional pay scale in terms of the government policy after taking into account the services rendered by them in aided school. Petitioners contend that services rendered by them before inclusion of the school concerned in grant-in-aid list also need to be taken into account for grant of monetary benefits. (5) Learned State Counsel submits that petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, but no representation has been made by them staking claim for such relief, therefore writ petition is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that petitioners have repeatedly represented the matter before the authorities concerned, although representations so made have not been enclosed with the writ petition. (6) Be that as it may, since petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim staked by petitioners, writ petitions are disposed of by permitting petitioners to make their separate representation before the competent authority. If petitioners make such representation staking claim for aforesaid monetary benefits within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by Chief Education Officer concerned, as per law, within four months thereafter. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 1 .5 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d46 2503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58 C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.22 17:19:20 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3998