VIJAY PAL CHAUHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1523/2026

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

CNR: UKHC010100602026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WPSS/5254/2026

Filing Date

08-06-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1523/2026

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)

VIJAY PAL CHAUHAN

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 allowing petitioner Vijay Pal Chauhan and 11 similarly situated pharmacists to file fresh representations seeking Old Pension Scheme benefits. The petitioners, appointed in 2006 following a 2005 selection process, contended they deserved the Old Pension Scheme since vacancies originated from a 2000 advertisement and age relaxation was granted. The court, with the State's consent, permitted fresh representation within ten days, with the competent authority required to decide within four months by passing reasoned orders. 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 allowing petitioner Vijay Pal Chauhan and 11 similarly situated pharmacists to file fresh representations seeking Old Pension Scheme benefits. The petitioners, appointed in 2006 following a 2005 selection process, contended they deserved the Old Pension Scheme since vacancies originated from a 2000 advertisement and age relaxation was granted. The court, with the State's consent, permitted fresh representation within ten days, with the competent authority required to decide within four months by passing reasoned orders. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case