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

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPSS/5252/2026

Filing Date

08-06-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1525/2026

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)

NARENDRA SINGH

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

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case