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

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPSS/5249/2026

Filing Date

08-06-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1528/2026

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

PENSION MATTER ( 16 )

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)

NAGESHWAR UNIYAL

Adv. DEVANG DOBHAL

Respondent(s)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

DIRECTOR

Adv. C.S.C.

SECRETARY

Adv. C.S.C.

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/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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case