RAHUL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C. — WPSS/1499/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010100122026
Filing Number
WPSS/5226/2026
Filing Date
08-Jun-2026
Registration No
WPSS/1499/2026
Registration Date
08-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )
Sub-Category
REGULARIZATION ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
10-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 12-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAHUL
Adv. DUSHYANT MAINALI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C.
-
2.NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MUSSOORIE
Adv. BHUWAN BHATT
-
3.CHAIRMAN
Adv. BHUWAN BHATT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
Summary of WPSS/1499/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by Group-D employees of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie, who sought minimum pay-scale parity with regular establishment employees after 13-15 years of service. The court directed the Nagar Palika Parishad to decide the petitioners' pending representations within six weeks by a reasoned order, without deciding the substantive relief sought, as the respondents did not oppose this interim direction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
Fresh Cases For Admission -3
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
-
08-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPSS/1499/2026
Summary of WPSS/1499/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by Group-D employees of Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie, who sought minimum pay-scale parity with regular establishment employees after 13-15 years of service. The court directed the Nagar Palika Parishad to decide the petitioners' pending representations within six weeks by a reasoned order, without deciding the substantive relief sought, as the respondents did not oppose this interim direction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts