Uttarakhand High Court
Ghanshyam Paliwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1140 of 2021
Ghanshyam Paliwal .......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ............ Respondents
Mr. Harendra Belwal, 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:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to threat
the services of the petitioner as a confirmed
employees appointed under Dying-in-Harness Rules
since his date of initial appointment i.e. 11.02.2010.
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him
all consequential benefits.
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to give
him admissible Pay Scale to the petitioner as is
being drawn by his other counterpart in the
department.
iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to take a
decision on the application dated 02.08.2021,
moved by the petitioner (Annexure No.7 in this writ
petition).
v) To Award the cost of the writ petition to the
petitioner."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his
father on 12.08.2009, petitioner was appointed on 11.02.2010 by the
respondents department under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The grievance of
the petitioner is that instead of making the appointment as a confirmed
employee, the petitioner has been appointed on daily rated basis.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for
the petitioner that since the petitioner has already been appointed and
now, seeking the change of category of his appointment, why this writ
petition be entertained 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, in
fact, it is an error which has been committed by the respondents
department, petitioner has drawn the attention of authorities by way of
representation dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition),
which has yet not been decided.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer that
the respondents authority may be directed to decide the representation
dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) within the
stipulated time. He would submit that, in fact, the controversy has
already been decided by this Court in WPSS No.675 of 2020 and the
respondent authority should consider the representation in view of the
law laid down in WPSS No.675 of 2020.
7. Learned State counsel would submit that within two
months decision will be taken on the representation dated 02.08.2021
(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition).
8. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the
respondents, to decide the representation dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure
No.7 to the writ petition), in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.09.2021
Sanjay
