ZIAUL HASAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C. — WPSB/334/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: UKHC010101062026
Next Hearing
: -
Filing Number
WPSB/5277/2026
Filing Date
08-06-2026
Registration No
WPSB/334/2026
Registration Date
08-06-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )
Sub-Category
TERMINATION/DISMISSAL ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ZIAUL HASAN
Adv. YOGESH PANT,HARSHI GUPTA,HARSHI GUPTA, ,HARSHI GUPTA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ADDITIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Adv. C.S.C.
DISTRICT MISSION MANAGER
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: WPSB 334/2026 Ziaul Hasan, a Block Mission Manager under Uttarakhand State Rural Livelihood Mission, challenged his potential termination due to inability to register on 'Rojgar Prayag Portal' (which requires Uttarakhand domicile). The court granted interim relief, ordering his services not be terminated solely on this ground, noting government rules require retention of existing outsourced employees and his performance was satisfactory. The State was granted four weeks to file a counter-affidavit; case listed for hearing thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPSB 334/2026 Ziaul Hasan, a Block Mission Manager under Uttarakhand State Rural Livelihood Mission, challenged his potential termination due to inability to register on 'Rojgar Prayag Portal' (which requires Uttarakhand domicile). The court granted interim relief, ordering his services not be terminated solely on this ground, noting government rules require retention of existing outsourced employees and his performance was satisfactory. The State was granted four weeks to file a counter-affidavit; case listed for hearing thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts