Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6126 (UTT)

ANAND SINGH NAYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION

WPSS/2052/2018 · 2026-05-25

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4139 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/2052/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. There is no one to represent respondents. 2. According to petitioner, he was appointed as daily wager in the year 1985 and his services were regularised in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology in the year 2000. Petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2008. 3. Since petitioner was not paid pension, therefore he has filed this writ petition seeking following relief: “Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pay the retiremental benefits such as pension, gratuity and other benefits to the petitioner from the date he retired from the services, i.e. 31.12.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation considering his entire service period of 18.2.1985 to 31.12.2008.” 4. Stand taken by respondents is that petitioner has not rendered minimum qualifying service of 10 years in the University. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced in Court a letter dated 23.05.2018, issued by Deputy Controller (Pension) of the University to the Public Information Officer. In 2026:UHC:4139 second para of said letter, there is reference to Government Orders dated 19.12.1984, 10.12.1984, 25.06.2005, 18.06.2005 and 13.12.2017, and it is mentioned that decision regarding pension has to be taken based on these Government Orders. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite assurance, no progress is made in the matter, therefore competent authority in the University be directed to take decision in the matter. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that if petitioner has any grievance, then he should have approached the Registrar of the University by making representation before rushing to this Court. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation to the Registrar, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology regarding his claim for pension/ retiral dues. If he makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken as per law, within three months thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.05.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:4139