NAGESHWAR UNIYAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1528/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010100512026
Filing Number
WPSS/5249/2026
Filing Date
08-Jun-2026
Registration No
WPSS/1528/2026
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NAGESHWAR UNIYAL
Adv. DEVANG DOBHAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
2.DIRECTOR
Adv. C.S.C.
-
3.SECRETARY
Adv. C.S.C.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
Summary of WPSS/1528/2026 - Nageshwar Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand The court disposed of 12 consolidated writ petitions by Ayush Department Pharmacists appointed in 2006, who claimed entitlement to Old Pension Scheme benefits based on age relaxation granted in a 2005 selection process for vacancies originally advertised in 2000. The court permitted petitioners to file fresh representations within ten days, with the State to decide thereupon within four months by reasoned order, rather than granting the mandamus sought. 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/1528/2026
Summary of WPSS/1528/2026 - Nageshwar Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand The court disposed of 12 consolidated writ petitions by Ayush Department Pharmacists appointed in 2006, who claimed entitlement to Old Pension Scheme benefits based on age relaxation granted in a 2005 selection process for vacancies originally advertised in 2000. The court permitted petitioners to file fresh representations within ten days, with the State to decide thereupon within four months by reasoned order, rather than granting the mandamus sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts