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

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPSS/5226/2026

Filing Date

08-06-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1499/2026

Registration Date

08-06-2026

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

10th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

RAHUL

Adv. DUSHYANT MAINALI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C.

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MUSSOORIE

Adv. BHUWAN BHATT

CHAIRMAN

Adv. BHUWAN BHATT

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

10-06-2026

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

10-06-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

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