Shyam Lal Vishwakarma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1208 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 476 of 2021

Shyam Lal Vishwakarma                                    ...... Petitioner

                                   Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                         ..... Respondents


Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.



                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) A writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the pending representations dated 05.12.2020 and 01.01.2021 moved by the petitioner seeking to consider his claim for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector with effect from the date of juniors to him were promoted vide order dated 31.08.2020 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and seniority.

(ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award cost of the petition to the present petitioner."

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

3. It is the case of the petitioner, that he is serving as a Sub Inspector and senior most in his cadre; despite that he is not being considered for the next promotion.

4. When the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should his claim be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the existence of alternate efficacious remedy in the State Public Services Tribunal as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Tribunals) Act, 1976.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the prayer is only for directions to the authority to consider the representations filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that within six weeks, State will decide the representations, submitted by the petitioner.

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

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.2, to decide the representations dated 05.12.2020 and 01.01.2021, submitted by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. 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.) 26.03.2021 Sanjay