Nalin Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 526 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                      Writ Petition (S/S) No. 313 of 2021

Nalin Pant                                                      ......... Petitioner

                                        Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others                                 .......Respondents



Present: Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1
         Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the dues as well as retiral benefits of deceased Late Sri Dipin Pant brother of the petitioner form the date when the brother of the petitioner Late Dipin Pant was died i.e. on 24.02.2016 alongwith 18% interest. ii. Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iii. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel and also heard learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. This Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner to tell as to why this writ petition should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of existence of State Public Services

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that this matter may be entertained by the State Public Services Tribunal, but he seeks indulgence that directions may be issued to the Tribunal to consider the claim of the petitioner expeditiously.

5. The dispute is related to the service matter, which can very much be entertained by the State Public Services Tribunal and the petitioner can avail efficacious remedy from there. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition may not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be dismissed.

6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 26.02.2021 Jitendra