Shri Raju vs Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 3665 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1190 of 2021


Shri Raju                                               .......... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

Secretary, Urban Development Department and others
                                            ............ Respondents


Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Vasistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan,
Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.


                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

It is the case of the petitioner that having served with Nagar Palika Parishad, Kichha, he retired on 30.01.2021. But, his dues has yet not been paid to him. Petitioner had given a representation on 04.08.2021 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), but it has yet not been decided. Petitioner seeks directions to the respondent nos.3 and 4 to decide the representation given by him on 04.08.2021 and also direction to calculate the services as rendered by the petitioner as daily wager employee for the purpose.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim relates to retiral dues, which has yet not been paid to the petitioner, despite a representation having been given on 04.08.2021 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 a direction be issued to the respondent nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), submitted by the petitioner.

6. On behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4, a statement is given that the representation dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) will be decided within a period of one month from today.

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

8. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent nos.3 and 4, to decide the representation dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) 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.) 17.09.2021 Sanjay