Smt. Sunmati Devi And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3446 UK

       HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1124 of 2021

Smt. Sunmati Devi and another                                  .......... Petitioners


                                        Vs.

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


Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sushil Vasistha, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioners claim that they worked on daily rated basis with the respondents department for more than 20 years. But, they have not been paid pension. Hence, the claim.

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 petitioners, as to why should this Court entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the availability of 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 petitioners would submit that liberty may be given to the petitioners to make a fresh representation to respondents within a period of two weeks from today, with the further directions to respondents, to take decision on the representation within the stipulated time.

5. Learned State counsel gives a statement that in case, such a representation is made by the petitioners, a decision will be taken on it within a period of two months from the receipt of the representation.

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

7. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to respondents within a period of two weeks from today with further directions to respondents that upon such representation having been made, that shall be decided within a period of two months thereafter. 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.) 03.09.2021 Sanjay