Uttarakhand High Court
Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others. ... on 9 December, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 1566 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. C.S.C. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner for relief No. 3, as claimed in
the Writ Petition, had earlier filed a Writ Petition,
being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1207 of 2021, Heera
Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. As per
the observations made in para 4 of the said
judgment, which is extracted hereunder :-
"4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is not being paid the
remuneration, to which, he is entitled to, despite the
representation having been made. He restricts his
prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be given
the liberty to file a fresh representation to
respondent no.3 within a period of 10 days from
today with the further directions to the respondent
no.3 to take decision on the representation within
the given time."
At that stage of time, when the Writ Petition
was considered on 18th September, 2021, the
petitioner had himself through this Counsel,
confined his prayer, that he may be permitted to file
a fresh representation before responding No. 3, to
be decided by them.
It is in compliance thereto, that the decision
th
of 28 October, 2021, impugned in the present Writ
Petition has been put to challenge.
Simultaneously, the petitioner has also given
a challenge to the notice issued on 28th October,
2021, whereby, 30 days' notice had been given to
the petitioner soliciting his reply, as to why his
services may not be dispensed with after the expiry
of the aforesaid period.
If at all, the petitioner has any grievance as
against the action taken by respondents by
impugned order of 28th October, 2021, for the
purposes of relief No. 3, I am of the view that after
the rejection of the representation, this Writ Petition
would be the second Writ Petition for same cause of
action, because the same relief was earlier claimed
and it was not pressed by the petitioner, as he had
opted out to get the Writ Petition disposed of to
decide the representation.
So far as the subsequent notice issued on 28th
October, 2021, is concerned, the petitioner ought to
have submitted his reply to the notice of 28th
October, 2021, whereby the respondents have
expressed their intention of terminating the services
of the petitioner, which he has not availed.
This Writ Petition is being closed, with the
liberty left open to the petitioner that, in case, if the
petitioner files a response to the notice of 28th
October, 2021, (annexure No.7 to the Writ
Petition), before Divisional Forest Officer, Almora,
Forest Division, within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
judgment, the same would be considered and
decided by respondent No. 3, exclusively on its
own merits within a period of six weeks thereafter.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 09.12.2021
Shiv
