Parshuram vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 694 UK

     THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                       Writ Petition (S/S) No. 392 of 2021

Parshuram                                                           ....... Petitioner

                                          Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & others                                      ......Respondents

Present: Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Mr. P.S. Bisht, Additional CSC with Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the
       State/respondents.

                                          Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding the Respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner in

accordance with Seven Pay Commission from the date of commencement

of Seven Pay Commission and all other consequential benefits in favour of

the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding the Respondents to decide the representation dated

04/10/2020 (contained in the Annexure No.3).

(iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to 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 petition may be

entertained in view of the availability of alternative efficacious remedy

before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, as constituted under

the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

4. To it, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner simply seeks fixation of his pension in view of the

Seventh Pay Commission and directions may be issued to the

respondents to consider the representation already submitted by the

petitioner.

5. On behalf of the State, the learned counsel would submit

that the representation filed by the petitioner may be decided within a

period of one month.

6. The statement given by the learned State Counsel is

placed on record.

7. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the

respondents to decide the representation already submitted by the

petitioner 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.) 05.03.2021 AR/