Uttarakhand High Court Civil Procedure and Evidence Employment and Labour Law

Uttarakhand HC Rejects State’s Bid To Revisit 2018 Remuneration Ruling After Losing Appeals, SLPs And Reviews

Prem Singhv.State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 29, 2026Published 2 November 2026 at 8:13 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State’s applications seeking clarification of the order dated 10 October 2018 were maintainable after the matter had been pursued through special appeal, an SLP and review applications.

The court held

The Court dismissed all clarification applications as not maintainable, leaving the order dated 10 October 2018 undisturbed.

01Facts

The connected writ petitions concerned the petitioners’ entitlement to remuneration.

By an order dated 10 October 2018, the petitioners were held entitled to remuneration on the basis of the Government of India letter dated 30 December 2008.

p. 8

The State filed clarification applications, contending that applying three subsequent Government of India orders—dated 30 December 2008, 12 December 2014 and 26 July 2019—would benefit the petitioners.

p. 8

The Court noted that the petitioners had already pursued special appeals, an SLP and review applications.

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State’s applications seeking clarification of the order dated 10 October 2018 were maintainable after the matter had been pursued through special appeal, an SLP and review applications.

p. 8

ii.2. Whether the order could be clarified by reference to the Government of India orders dated 12 December 2014 and 26 July 2019, in light of the original direction that remuneration be based on the letter dated 30 December 2008.

p. 8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the terms of its order dated 10 October 2018, which provided for remuneration to be determined on the basis of the Government of India letter dated 30 December 2008.

p. 8

It stated that, where that direction was clear, no further Government of India order could be relied upon to alter its basis through clarification.

p. 8

The judgment cited no statute or precedent.

pp. 8–9

04Reasoning

The Court considered the original remuneration direction clear and rejected the State’s attempt to introduce other Government of India orders through clarification.

p. 8

It further reasoned that any benefit or loss arising from the existing direction was a matter for the petitioners, not the State, and questioned the maintainability of clarification applications after the proceedings had been pursued through the available appellate and review forums.

p. 8