SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 288

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
UMA SHANKAR – Appellant
Versus
GURUKUL KANGRI VISHWAVIDYALAYA HARIDWAR – Respondent
WPSS 1021 / 2025



Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

S N L o . .

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPSS 1021/ 2025

With

WPSS 1157/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Dr. Neha Gupta, Advocate, i/b Mr.

Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, for

the respondents.

(2) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the writ petitions, these are being decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of WPSS No. 1021 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed

here.

(3) Petitioners were appointed against non-teaching posts in Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, a deemed-to-be University, in courses run on Self Financed Scheme. According to petitioners, they are entitled to various allowances, which various other employees of University are getting, however the same is being denied to petitioners. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the

following reliefs:

“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in

the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of Transport Allowance, LTC, Children Education Allowance, Dearness Allowances, Medical Allowances- Fixed/Reimbursement, Dress Allowances etc., and Arrear comprising Salary Fixation, Retirement benefits to the petitioners as per UGC/AICTE/PCI

norms.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of other service benefits as per UGC/AICTE/PCI norms for employees appointed

on or before SFS Rules 2020, on the permanent basis and further issued direction to the respondents not to implement/change the service condition of the petitioners in future retrospectively.”

(4) Since petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus and they have not made any representation so far to the competent authority, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to make representation, highlighting their grievance, to the competent authority, who may be directed to take decision thereupon.

(5) Writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to make representation to Registrar of the University. If petitioners make representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within ten weeks thereafter.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

2.1.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMARD2pBDe.EoiNa5rg5sti:4et3tca: a,2N= l2clC0Iu0nyNom s,d36 iPobega.R0nA1Hr8eB26IdGOa3 bDyC7CHP :9 ,RK5s0UAUtE=2 BMf8T6 OU9DT+ D1R0FH CAa5 K9R'3T6U5MKEHA17R4NB3 K9aDH4f,80NE2FD1Dc, 5o08u6=H2AIfGCe aC1OA4UBR56T81 aOf03F52UeDTFb6A1R9C8AdK54H86C2N5D073F, C9157

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top