WPMS/587/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 964 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPMS No.587 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. T.S. Fartiyal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate, for the respondent.

The petitioner questioning the appointment and extension of services of the private respondent No.4, had preferred a Writ Petition being WPMS No.387 of 2021, seeking a writ of quo warranto as against the respondent No.4.

The Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 06.09.2021, disposed of the writ petition of quo warranto, on the ground that the prior stipulations required for questioning the appointment of an individual by invoking a writ of quo warranto was not being satisfied. However, while parting with the judgment, the Division Bench has left it open for the petitioner to file a representation, and the respondents were supposed to consider the same, after hearing the respondent No.4.

Consequent to the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent No.1, had proceeded to pass an order dated 23.12.2021, whereby the representation of the petitioner's has been rejected, and the consequential extension of the services of the respondent No.4, and the extension of other service benefits flowing from it, were upheld.

The petitioner has sought a writ, of the nature, apart from quashing of the order dated 23.12.2021, he had also sought for a writ of mandamus for withholding the retiral monetary benefits which had been given to the respondent No.4.

This Court is of the view, that so far as the decision of 23.12.2021, is concerned, which is under challenge in the writ petition, that in itself will not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner, where his contentions for taking an action against the respondent No.4, has been denied by the respondents, merely because of the fact that the decision has flown was in compliance of the decision which was rendered by the Division Bench. In fact, I am of the view that in the instant writ petition the nature of relief, which has been sought by the petitioner, is not for pressing of his any rights, which has been envisaged and protected in his favour, under the law.

In that eventuality, where there is a non enforcement of any statutory rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition will not be maintainable for the vengeance of the personal grievances, even though, if it has been decided by way of the deciding the representation in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench.

In that view of the matter, and for the reasons above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 29.03.2022 NR/