SUNIL JAGURI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1520/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010100482026

Filing Number

WPSS/5247/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1520/2026

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

PENSION MATTER ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUNIL JAGURI

    Adv. DEVANG DOBHAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.DIRECTOR

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.SECRETARY

    Adv. C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

    Case Summary: WPSS/1520/2026 Sunil Jaguri and 11 similarly-situated Pharmacists sought Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits, claiming entitlement based on a 2000 U.P. advertisement that was re-advertised in 2005 after state reorganization, with their appointments following in 2006. The court disposed of the petitions by permitting petitioners to file fresh representations within 10 days, directing the competent authority to decide on these representations within four months by passing a reasoned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  4. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPSS/1520/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPSS/1520/2026 Sunil Jaguri and 11 similarly-situated Pharmacists sought Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits, claiming entitlement based on a 2000 U.P. advertisement that was re-advertised in 2005 after state reorganization, with their appointments following in 2006. The court disposed of the petitions by permitting petitioners to file fresh representations within 10 days, directing the competent authority to decide on these representations within four months by passing a reasoned order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case