Soban Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on the record.

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to sanction the pension to the petitioner by taking the work charge services

of the petitioner into account with its arrears along with interest from the date of retirement. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has annexed the

copy of the order dated 27.9.2017, passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ranikhet (respondent no. 6). By the said order,

the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the controversy involved in the matter has been decided and attained

finality by the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. (S) 10806 of 207, Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand &

Others, therefore, prayer of the petitioner should be allowed.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition and contended that unless the order rejecting the claim of the

petitioner is not challenged, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no need to

challenge the order by which the representation/claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

In my view also, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner should be challenged. Unless it is set aside, it would not be appropriate for this

Court to direct the respondents to grant the pension in terms of the directions of Hon''ble Supreme Court made in the aforementioned case.

Consequently, I dismiss this writ petition.