ARJUN KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPSS/1610/2025

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010153092025

Filing Number

WPSS/7415/2025

Filing Date

24-Sep-2025

Registration No

WPSS/1610/2025

Registration Date

24-Sep-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE WRIT PETITION ( 1 )

Sub-Category

REGULARIZATION ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARJUN KUMAR

    Adv. SHUBHANG DOBHAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

  2. 2.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

    Adv. C.S.C.

  3. 3.NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD

    Adv. DAVESH BISHNOI

  4. 4.NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD DUGADDA

    Adv. DAVESH BISHNOI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar TiwariView PDF

    Case Summary: WPSS/1610/2025 The court found the termination of Arjun Kumar (a contractual Data Entry Operator serving since 2011) unjustified, as a 2015 directive cannot retroactively affect pre-existing employment. The court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to seek re-engagement through representation to the competent authority, which must decide sympathetically within eight weeks, with the petitioner eligible to claim service continuity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Oct-2025

    Admission Matters -25

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

  4. 26-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 24-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPSS/1610/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPSS/1610/2025 The court found the termination of Arjun Kumar (a contractual Data Entry Operator serving since 2011) unjustified, as a 2015 directive cannot retroactively affect pre-existing employment. The court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to seek re-engagement through representation to the competent authority, which must decide sympathetically within eight weeks, with the petitioner eligible to claim service continuity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case