Smt. Lalita Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1156 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                           Writ Petition (S/S) No.472 of 2021

Smt. Lalita Pandey                                                       ......... Petitioner

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

Present:
            Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.

                                        JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to place the petitioner on a class III post instead of class IV post w.e.f. 20-9-2005, the day when the petitioner has joined her duties.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to grant the benefit of pay protection in the light of the last pay drawn (₹920/- basic pay) by her in her M/s Television Ltd., Bhimtal, District Nainital.

(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

(iv) award the cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

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

3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the instant writ petition be entertained in view of the availability of the alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that directions may be issued to respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure 7) submitted by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the representation given by the petitioner may be decided by the respondent no.2 within a period of one month from today.

6. The Court takes on record the statement made by learned counsel for the State.

7. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation 30.07.2013 (Annexure 7) within a period of one month 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.) 25.03.2021 Jitendra