GIRISH CHANDRA NAUTIYAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1559/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010102832026

Filing Number

WPSS/5363/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPSS/1559/2026

Registration Date

10-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

RETIREMENT BENIFITS ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GIRISH CHANDRA NAUTIYAL

    Adv. ANIL ANTHWAL

  2. 2.DINESH PRASAD MATHANI

  3. 3.SHAB SINGH MEHRA

  4. 4.HIRA MANI JOSHI

  5. 5.RAMESH PRASAD

  6. 6.NATHI LAL PAINULY

  7. 7.SURJAN SINGH

  8. 8.RAJENDRA PRASAD

  9. 9.KAMALESHWAR PRASAD

  10. 10.HARI DAS

  11. 11.VIJENDRA NAUTIYAL

  12. 12.YOGESHWAR PRASAD MAITHANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.DIRECTOR

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.DEPUTY DIRECTOR

    Adv. C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF

    The court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to grant Accelerated Promotion (ACP) benefits to petitioners by counting their service rendered before their institution came under grant-in-aid status. The decision was based on a binding coordinate bench judgment from 2017, which the State had unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench and Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPSS/1559/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to grant Accelerated Promotion (ACP) benefits to petitioners by counting their service rendered before their institution came under grant-in-aid status. The decision was based on a binding coordinate bench judgment from 2017, which the State had unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench and Supreme Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case