WPSB/337/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1940 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                  WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 337 OF 2023
                               25TH JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Vinod Chauhan                                                   .....Petitioner.
And

State of Uttarakhand & others                                   ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Ketki Chaudhary, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General.

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 his transfer vide transfer order dated

06.07.2022, passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest

(HoFF), whereby the petitioner was transferred from

Dehradun Forest Division (Territorial Forest Division) to the

Research Forest Division, namely, the Silviculturist, Nainital

(Non-Territorial Forest Division), and the consequential

transfer/ posting order dated 21.12.2022, issued by the DFO/

Silviculturist to take charge of the non-territorial Range as the

same was made in gross violation of the Government Order

dated 05.09.2013, as well as the order dated 10.03.2017,

passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.145 of 2016,

dated 10.03.2017. The petitioner seeks a direction to the

respondents to post him in some Territorial Division/ Range in

accordance with the Government Order dated 05.09.2013,

and in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court.

2. The petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition,

being Writ Petition (S/B) No.472 of 2022, which was

withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner on 15.05.2023.

3. The present writ petition has been preferred by

stating that the said writ petition was withdrawn due to

coercion, and assurance that once the petition is withdrawn,

the petitioner would be given the posting, as desired by him.

However, there is nothing placed on record to show that the

petitioner was either placed under any coercion, or any

assurance was given to him, as aforesaid.

4. That being the position, in our view, the present

writ petition is not maintainable to seek the reliefs which are

covered by Writ Petition (S/B) No.472 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner's representation is, however, pending

consideration.

6. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a

direction to the respondents to decide the said representation

of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order while

dealing with the aforesaid Government Order, and the

judgment of this Court. The representation shall be decided

within the next four weeks, and the decision be

communicated to the petitioner.

7. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved, he would be

entitled to avail of his remedies in law.

8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 25th July, 2023 NISHANT