2026:UHC:4495-DB SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.404 of 2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. 3. Petitioner served as Chief Pharmacist in Medical Department and retired on 31.07.2012. At the time of his retirement, petitioner was getting pay- scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs.4600/-, which was upgraded to Pay- Band Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.5400/- vide Government Order dated 31.12.2013. 4. Since petitioner was not given benefit of pay upgradation, therefore, he made representation claiming upgraded Pay- Scale. His representation was rejected by the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, vide order dated 13.12.2017, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. In the impugned order, Director General has observed that since petitioner retired much before issuance of Government Order dated 31.12.2013, whereby, Pay-Scale admissible for the 2026:UHC:4495-DB post of Chief Pharmacist was upgraded, therefore, benefit of upgraded pay cannot be given to petitioner. 6. Director General also referred to the Government Order dated 31.12.2013, where, it is provided that the revised Pay- Scales would be payable to Chief Pharmacist with immediate effect. 7. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned rejection order. Since Government Order whereby Pay Scale was upgraded, itself provides that it would be prospective and petitioner retired much before issuance of that Government Order, therefore, petitioner’s claim for upgraded Pay-Scale is without any basis. There is no element of retrospectivity reflected in Government Order dated 31.12.2013, which would support petitioner’s claim. Thus, the reasons assigned in the impugned order are valid and any interference with that order would be unwarranted. 8. In view of the above, writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.06.2026 PN