RAJESH KUMAR NIGAM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSB /158/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 27th March 2026.

CNR: UKHC010042972026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPSB /2273/2026

Filing Date

19-03-2026

Registration No

WPSB /158/2026

Registration Date

19-03-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )

Sub-Category

RETIREMENT BENIFITS ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

RAJESH KUMAR NIGAM

Adv. SHOBHIT SAHARIA

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CHAIRMAN

Adv. ADITYA PRATAP SINGH

UTTARAKHAND SEEDS AND TARAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Adv. ADITYA PRATAP SINGH

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

23-03-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

23-03-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
27-03-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

Summary The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a writ petition by a retired Company Secretary seeking full gratuity (₹14,84,993), interest at 18%, and ACP arrears. The court found that ₹10 lakhs gratuity had already been released per corporate policy, and ACP grant for 2011-2013 was approved by the Board. The court permitted the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks for remaining disputed dues, with the Competent Authority to decide within six weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a writ petition by a retired Company Secretary seeking full gratuity (₹14,84,993), interest at 18%, and ACP arrears. The court found that ₹10 lakhs gratuity had already been released per corporate policy, and ACP grant for 2011-2013 was approved by the Board. The court permitted the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks for remaining disputed dues, with the Competent Authority to decide within six weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case