Uttarakhand High Court
Kheema Nand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 February, 2026
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSB No. 80 of 2026
Kheema Nand .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others .....Respondents
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
1. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel
alongwith Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel and Mr. Naveen Tiwari, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner was getting pension
after retirement but abruptly the impugned order
came to be passed and on basis of which his pension
has been stopped. It is urged that the impugned
order has been passed without any show cause notice
or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He
submits that in identical facts and circumstances in
WPSB No.51/2026 an interim order has been granted
by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the judgment in “Uday Pratap Thakur
and another vs. State of Bihar and others” and other
connected matters, 2023 AIR (SC) 2971 by a Two-
Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court was
considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent
judgment in “State of Odisha and others vs.
Sudhansu Sekhar Jeena” and other connected
matters, 2025 SCC Online SC 385, wherein it has
been observed as follows:-
“13. In our respectful opinion, the above
interpretation by the two Judge Bench of this Court
regarding the three Judge Bench decision in Prem
Singh (supra) does not appear to be correct as the
three Judge Bench has been quite ambiguous in
asserting that the entire period of service of the work-
charged employees has to be counted for pension.”
5. It is further submitted that the provisions of
Uttarakhand Qualifying Service for Pension and
Validation Act, 2022 insofar as it seeks to deny
benefit of pension to work-charged employees
amounts to retrospective overruling by the
Legislature and similar provision made by State of
U.P. has been read down by Allahabad High Court
and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ -A No.731
of 2024 “Jai Ram Sharma vs. State of U.P.” and other
connected matters.
6. The matter requires consideration.
7. As the vires of the Validation Act, 2022 is under
challenge, therefore, let notice be issued to learned
Advocate General.
8. Counter affidavit be filed by the respondents
within four weeks.
9. List in the week commencing 23.03.2026 along
with WPSB No.44/2026, WPSB No.45/2026, WPSB
No.47/2026 and WPSB No. 48/2026.
10. Having regard to the facts of the case and the
submissions made, the effect and operation of the
impugned order/office memorandum dated
16.01.2026 shall remain stayed, till the next date of
listing.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
19.02.2026 19.02.2026
Ujjwal
