Ved Prakash Arya And Others ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3026 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                   Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1027 of 2021

Ved Prakash Arya and others                                   ...... Petitioners


                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                             ..... Respondents


Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief             Standing   Counsel    for   the
State/respondents.

                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioner seeks regularization of their services and other related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they joined the respondents department on contractual basis in the year 2013-2014, since then they have been working regularly, but their services have yet not been regularized; there is no adverse entry or remarks against them, but petitioners are now aggrieved by a requisition dated 08.09.2020, which has been sent by the department to the Personnel Department for recruitment. With these and other averments, petitioners seek that the post on which the petitioners have been working be kept reserved for them till their services are regularized and other many reliefs have also been sought.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public

Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit the direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition), which has been submitted by the petitioners to the competent authority.

6. On behalf of the State, a statement is given that the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) will be decided by the respondents within a period of two months from today.

7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents, to decide the representation dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) within a period of two months from today. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.08.2021 Sanjay