Ved Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1259 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (S/S) No. 683 of 2023

Ved Prakash                                        ........Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                .....Respondents
Present:-
      Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mr. Narayan Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus directing and

commanding the respondents to

determine and pay the post retiral dues

with interest, after calculating entire

service rendered by the petitioner

w.e.f.01.11.2004 to 31.03.2021 till the

date of his superannuation.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus directing and

commanding the respondents to pay

arrears, gratuity and commutation

amount and monthly pension to the

petitioner after calculating the entire

service from 01.11.2004 to 31.03.2021.

(iii) Issue a suitable writ order or

direction in the nature which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition and

may be given to the petitioner."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know

as to how the petition should be entertained in view of the

existence of the State Public Services Tribunal, as

constituted under the Uttarakhand Public Services

(Tribunal) Act, 1976?

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the controversy is covered by the judgment of

this Court.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is

not covered by that judgment. The factual aspects are

quite distinct.

6. Necessarily, the petitioner is raising a dispute

pertaining to service matter. Such matters can very well

be entertained by the State Public Services Tribunal. It

has not been shown as to what is exceptional in this case

that this Court should, despite availability of relief before

State Public Services Tribunal, entertain the instant writ

petition. Therefore, for this cause, the writ petition may

not be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves

to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.05.2023 Ravi Bisht