Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1188 of 2021
Sanjay Singh Bisht .......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ............ Respondents
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Vasistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/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
certiorari to quash the impugned order dated
28.11.2017 passed by the respondent no.2
(Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) in so far as it
relates to the petitioner, and also the order dated
05.12.2017 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure
No.4 to the writ petition).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the natur of
mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all
consequential benefits to the petitioner of Grade Pay
of Rs.2400/-, 2800/- and 4600/- after completing 10,
16 and 26 years of services respectively.
III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which the
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances in nature of justice and equity.
IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that even having been
entitled for the Grade Pay and other benefits, he is denied the benefits
by the respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
similarly situated cases have already been decided by this Court in
WPSS No.3636 of 2017 as well as in WPSS No.375 of 2019.
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
liberty may be given to the petitioner to make a representation to the
respondents within a period of 15 days from today, with the further
directions to respondents, to take decision on the representation within
the given time.
7. 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.
8. The Court takes on record the statement given by the
learned State counsel.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period
of 15 days from today with further directions to the respondents that
upon such representation having been made, that shall be decided
within a period of two months thereafter in accordance with law. 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
