2026:UHC:4295 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/2115/2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate and Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. Ms. Ananya Jain, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondents. 2. Petitioners were appointed in a Government Company known as U.P. Digitals Ltd., before State reorganisation. A decision was taken on 20.04.2000 to close the company with certain conditions. 3. Petitioners are challenging decision taken in a meeting attended by representatives of State Government as well as Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited, on 20.08.2005. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the condition which is made part of the decision that for determining the amount payable under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) to employees of U.P. Digitals Ltd., revised pay scale as per 5th Pay Commission recommendation would not be applicable. 5. Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that since employees of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam were given benefit of pay revision as per 5th Pay Commission report, therefore such benefit cannot be denied to employees of U.P. Digitals Ltd. 6. Mr. M.C. Pant, also appears for the petitioners 2026:UHC:4295 and submits that salary till acceptance of option for VRS given by the petitioners has not been paid to petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioners applied under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and their request for VRS was accepted by the competent authority (Director, KMVN) vide order dated 20.04.2006. He further submits that VRS given by petitioners was effective from 31.12.2005. 8. He further submits that after acceptance of option for VRS submitted by petitioners, all benefits payable to employees of U.P. Digitals Ltd. were granted to petitioners. He further submits that writ petition is misconceived, as petitioners cannot now claim any extra benefit, once they accept the benefits which were paid to them as per VRS scheme at the relevant point of time. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submit that since petitioners were treated unfairly and they were denied benefit of revised pay scale as per the 5th Pay Commission report, while such pay scale were given to employees of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam, therefore, competent authority be directed to take decision in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioners to make representation to the competent authority. If they make representation within three weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, as per law, 2026:UHC:4295 within four months thereafter. 11. It goes without saying that competent authority shall take decision independently uninfluenced by any observation made in this order or any other order passed by any authority earlier. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.05.2026 Mahinder/