Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/524/2022 on 30 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 524 OF 2022
30th AUGUST, 2022
Between:
Ved Prakash Dhuliya ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand / respondents
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the judgment dated 14.07.2022, passed
by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal at Dehradun,
in Claim Petition No. 81/SB/2022.
2) The said Tribunal has dismissed the said claim
petition of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, ground
of jurisdiction, and the ground of limitation. The Tribunal
has taken the said view in the light of the fact that the
2
relief sought by the petitioner is in relation to the pay-
scale which he claims that he is entitled to receive from
01.01.1986 onwards, and consequently, the promotional
pay-scales on completion of 14, 20 and 26 years of
service. The Tribunal has referred to the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 102 of 2017, Dr.
Kamaljeet Singh and another Vs State of Uttarakhand and
others, decided by a Division Bench of this Court on
08.03.2018, wherein this Court had referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand
and another Vs Umakant Joshi, 2012 (1) U.D. 583, and
the Division Bench of this Court held as follows :
"11. From the aforesaid statements of law
contained in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court (Umakant Joshi case), we can
deduce two principles, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. Firstly, in respect to any rights that the persons,
who are allocated or working after the creation of the
State of Uttarakhand is concerned, which relates to the
period anterior to the date of the creation of the State of
Uttarakhand, the proper and competent authority would
be the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttarakhand
could not have the authority to deal with such a matter.
Secondly, in relation to any such complaint, the proper
forum to ventilate the grievance would be the High
Court of Allahabad or the Tribunal created under the law
passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh."
3
3) On the aspect of limitation, the Tribunal held
that the claim petition was barred by limitation, as the
claim related to a period far in excess of limitation of one
year prescribed under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal)
Act, 1976.
4) We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5) It is clear on a reading of the aforesaid decision
in Dr. Kamaljeet Singh (supra) that the Tribunal did not
have the jurisdiction to deal with the claim petition of the
petitioner. Since it did not have jurisdiction to deal with
the claim petition, in our view, there was no need for the
Tribunal to dwell into the aspect of limitation.
6) We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty
to petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court or the
Public Services Tribunal, Allahabad in the State of Uttar
Pradesh to raise his claims. All the issues are left open to
be decided by such Court / Tribunal.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
__________
R.C. Khulbe, J.
Dt: 30th AUGUST, 2022
Negi
