NARENDRA SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1525/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010100562026
Filing Number
WPSS/5252/2026
Filing Date
08-Jun-2026
Registration No
WPSS/1525/2026
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.NARENDRA SINGH
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
The court disposed of the writ petition by permitting Narendra Singh and similarly situated pharmacists to file fresh representations claiming Old Pension Scheme benefits. The petitioner argued eligibility based on age relaxation granted to candidates from a 2000 advertisement when vacancies were re-advertised in 2005, relying on a 2023 Government Order. The state did not oppose fresh consideration, and the court directed the competent authority to decide the representation within four months with a reasoned order if submitted within ten days. 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/1525/2026
The court disposed of the writ petition by permitting Narendra Singh and similarly situated pharmacists to file fresh representations claiming Old Pension Scheme benefits. The petitioner argued eligibility based on age relaxation granted to candidates from a 2000 advertisement when vacancies were re-advertised in 2005, relying on a 2023 Government Order. The state did not oppose fresh consideration, and the court directed the competent authority to decide the representation within four months with a reasoned order if submitted within ten days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts