Smt. Uma Kandpal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3767 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1227 of 2021

Smt. Uma Kandpal                                      .......... Petitioner

                                       Vs.

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


Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.


                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"i- a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 4-5-2021 and 17-4-2018 contained in Annexure no.4 & 5 to the writ petition.

ii- a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents do not made any recovery from the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 4-5- 2021 and 17-4-2018.

iii- a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv- Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Siksha Bandhu, Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the year 2004. Subsequently, his services were regularized and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher, LT Grade (Hindi). After serving the department, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2020. Post retirement, an order was passed on 04.05.2021 that for the purpose of Selection Grade, Ad hoc services could not have been counted. Petitioner was informed about it by a communication dated 22.06.2021, in which, reference was made to an order dated 17.04.2018 of respondent no.3. Petitioner is aggrieved by these communications.

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 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 petitioner may be given liberty to submit a representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of 10 days from today with further directions to the respondent no.2, to take decision on the representation within the given time.

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 the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent no.2 within a period of 10 days from today with further directions to the respondents that upon such representation having been made, that shall be decided within a period of one month 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.) 21.09.2021 Sanjay