UKHC010131752026 2026:UHC:6554 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1995 of 2026 29 July, 2026 Rukhmani Devi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand 2: The Executive Engineer Construction Division Pwd --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shubhang Dobhal and Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the admissible dues of the petitioner (Gratuity, Group Insurance Death Benefit, Group Savings Fund and Family Pension) pursuant to the death of her husband along with interest @ 12% per annum from 07.04.2006 till the date of actual payment. 2. The petitioner is widow of late Phagan Singh. Phagan Singh, who was a regular employee with the respondent PWD department. At the time of his death dated 01.04.2006, he was posted as Beldar in the office of respondent no.2. The petitioner has not been paid single penny on account of the death of her husband. UKHC010131752026 2026:UHC:6554 2 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for claiming the benefit arising out of death of her husband, a representation was submitted by petitioner to the Secretary, PWD on 10.06.2026, which is annexed Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Copy of the said representation has not been forwarded to the respondent no.2/Executive Engineer, where the petitioner was working at the time of his death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent No.1-Secretary, PWD Department, to decide the said representation within a stipulated time, the ends of justice would be met. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the representation was not forwarded to the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, where petitioner’s husband was posted at the time of his death. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the record and the contents of the petition, this Court is of the view that since the prayer is innocuous, therefore, a direction can be issued to respondents to decide the representation dated 10.06.2026 of the petitioner within a stipulated period, after submitting the copy of representation dated 10.06.2026 to respondent No.2 by the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. It is provided that apart from the representation submitted to the respondent No.1-Secretary, petitioner shall give the copy of said representation dated 10.06.2026 to the respondent no.2/Executive Engineer, UKHC010131752026 2026:UHC:6554 3 Construction Division, Public Works Department, Ukimath, District Rudraprayag within a period of ten days from today. If the petitioner submits the representation to respondent no.2, respondents shall take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation by the petitioner to respondent no.2. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.07.2026 Nahid