High Court · 2025

Presence: - Mr. Puran Singh Bisht , Addl. CSC / appellant . t he St at e of Ut t arakhand Mr. Am ar Murt i Shukla, Advocat e for t he respondent . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) JUD GM EN T I n t his Appeal, St at e has challenged t he j udgm ent and or der dat ed 09.03.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 120 of 2012. The im pugned j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - “ Pet it ioner was appoint ed as Trainee. Her services were t erm inat ed. She was re- engaged vide order dat ed 18.07.1987 on t he m ont hly salary of Rs.300/ - . Thereaft er, t he services of t he pet it ioner were t erm inat ed on 31.05.1998. She raised t he indust rial disput e. Learned Labour Court answered t he reference t he pet it ioner. The t erm inat ion order was set - aside. favour of The respondent - St at e has t aken a plea before t he Labour Court t he pet it ioner was on cont ract ual basis. This plea was repelled by t he Labour Court . t he appoint m ent of t hat 1 The St at e has assailed t he Award before t his Court by way of WPMS No.2356 of 2001. I t was dism issed on 26.07.2005 as not pressed. I n ot her words, t he Award has at t ained finalit y. Pet it ioner has worked for 24 years. She has been denied ret iral benefit s t o which she was ent it led as per t he law. pet it ion t he writ Accordingly, allowed. Respondent s are direct ed t o pay and released t he ret iral benefit s t o t he pet it ioner including GI S, LI C, grat uit y et c. by count ing her 24 years qualifying service, wit hin a period of t en weeks from t oday.”

2. Lear ned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat pet it ioner was regular / subst ant ive appoint m ent and she r em ained a cont ract ual em ployee, all t hrough t ill she com plet ed age of superannuat ion. He subm it s t hat t he pensionary benefit s are payable t o t he St at e em ployees as per t he provisions cont ained in Civil Service Regulat ions, however, prov isions of t his Regulat ion wer e not consider ed by t he learned Single Judge. Thus, he subm it s t hat t he im pugned j udgm ent is unsust ainable, as relevant provision of law was not consider ed.

3. We find subst ance in t he said subm ission. There is no refer ence t o t he Civil Service Regulat ions or any ot her st at ut ory provision dealing wit h t he pensionary benefit s t o St at e em ployees, in t he im pugned j udgm ent . Thus, t he im pugned j udgm ent cannot be sust ained in t he eyes of law.

4. We, accordingly, allow t he Appeal, set aside t he im pugned j udgm ent and direct t he Dir ect or, Dir ect orat e of I ndust ries, Ut t arakhand ( respondent no. 1 in t he w rit pet it ion) t o sym pat het ically consider respondent ’s case for 2 pension t he light of relevant st at ut ory provisions, including Regulat ions 361, 368 & 370 of Civil Service Regulat ions and ot her st at ut ory provisions cont ained in Ret irem ent Benefit s Act , wit hin four m ont hs from t he dat e of product ion of cert ified copy of t his order. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

05.05.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A1038 19DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2 1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3