KHEEMA NAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this present Writ Petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) In paragraphs 18, 19 & 20 of the Writ Petition learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Habib Khan's case as well as subsequent judgments rendered by this Court while deciding bunch of Special Appeals with Special Appeal No. 494/2017 'State of Uttarakhand & Another vs. Brahm Pal Singh' as leading case by judgment dated 26.04.2018, whereby the State's Appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 05.06.2017 directing to include the services rendered in work charge establishment for the purposes of grant of pension, retiral dues and other service benefits has been dismissed on the basis of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Habib Khan's case rendered on 23.08.2017. In Paragraphs 18, 19 & 20 of the Writ Petition following pleading has been raised:

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel do not refute rather admits this fact that the case of the petitioner for consideration of his services rendered in the work charge establishment for the purposes of determination of pension is covered by the aforesaid judgments rendered by this Court and affirm by the Hon'ble Apex Court . As such this Writ Petition too could be disposed of in terms of the dictum as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Habib Khan's case as annexed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, which has been subsequently followed by the Division Bench of this Court in bunch of Special Appeals with the leading Special Appeal No. 494/2017 'State of Uttarakhand & Another vs. Brahm Pal Singh' as decided on 26.04.2018.