Uttarakhand High Court
Soran Lal Kuril vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1137 of 2021
Soran Lal Kuril .......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ............ Respondents
Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated 13.07.2021 as
contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition;
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to grant
the benefit of pay parity with all the consequential
benefits with effect from the date his junior has
been granted, i.e. from 13.08.2002;
3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to grant
the same salary and emoluments of the post of
Accountant as have been granted to Sri Chandra
Shekhar Tiwari with effect from the date they have
been granted to Sri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari and to
pay him the arrears of the same.
4. Mould, issue and grant any other writ, order or
direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case;
5. Also award the cost of this petition to the
petitioners."
2. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Accountant on
08.03.1999 with the respondents department. It is the case of the
petitioner that the person junior to him has been granted higher pay-
scale and the petitioner has been denied the higher pay-scale despite the
recommendations having been made by respondent no.3, who is the
appointing authority.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since
recommendations for higher pay-scale of the petitioner has already
been made by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition has
been referred), the petitioner may be given liberty to make a fresh
representation to respondent no.4 within a period of 10 days from today
with further directions to respondent no.4 to decide the representation
within the stipulated time, as per recommendation already been made
by respondent no.3.
6. Learned State counsel gives a statement that in case, such
a representation is made by the petitioner, a decision will be taken on it
within a period of two months from the receipt of the representation.
7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.4 within a period
of 10 days from today with further directions to respondent no.4 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.)
07.09.2021
Sanjay
