Uttarakhand High Court
Pindar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 18 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.351 of 2024
Pindar Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Narayan Dutt,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2024, Mr.
Prakash Chandra Arya, Divisional Forest Officer (DFO),
Tarai West, Forest Division, Ramnagar (Nainital) was
directed to remain present before this Court and today,
he is present before this Court.
3. The reason for calling upon the personal
appearance of Divisional Forest Officer is that some
wrong instruction has been given before the Court
through State Counsel that the controversy involved in
the present writ petition is not covered by the
controversy involved in WPSS No.1957 of 2017.
4. This Court has gone through the judgment
and order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in WPSS No.1957 of 2017 dated 28.12.2023 and found
that the facts of the present case as well as the
aforesaid writ petition are similar. In fact, the present
petitioner is one of the petitioners in the earlier round
of litigation when the writ petition has been filed by
them before this Court. Petitioner along with Yuvraj
Singh Chuphal and Anil Kumar preferred a writ
petition before this Court being WPSS No.2677 of 2015
which came to be decided and disposed of by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for
grant of minimum pay scale within ten weeks from the
date of that order i.e. 17.04.2017.
5. After considering the case of the petitioners,
respondents rejected their claim. Thereafter, Yuvraj
Singh Chuphal and Anil Kumar preferred a writ
petition being WPSS No.1957 of 2017, which came to
be decided vide order dated 28.12.2023, wherein the
writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court and the competent authority was directed to
re-consider the claim of the petitioners in that writ
petition for minimum of pay scale in the light of the
discussion made in that order dated 28.12.2023. Since
the present petitioner could not file the writ petition
with Yuvraj Singh Chuphal and Anil Kumar, he filed
the present writ petition with the same relief, therefore,
in no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
case of the petitioner is even slightly different to that of
the case of the Yuvraj Singh Chuphal and Anil Kumar.
6. In this view of the matter, the instruction
which has been received by this Court on instructions
passed on by Divisional Forest Officer are very
irresponsible and can be termed to be as attempt of
misdirect and mislead this Court.
7. However, Mr. Prakash Chandra Arya,
Divisional Forest Officer submits that the mistake was
never deliberate and he had no intention to mislead
this Court, but inadvertently, the said instruction has
come forward. He sincerely tenders his unconditional
apology to this Court.
8. Having gone through the record of the case
and in view of the unconditional apology tendered by
Mr. Prakash Chandra Arya, Divisional Forest Officer,
this Court does not want to take any action against the
said officer.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in
terms of the order dated 28.12.2023 passed in WPSS
No.1957 of 2017. Respondents shall re-consider the
claim of the petitioner for minimum pay scale in terms
of the order dated 28.12.2023 within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of
this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.03.2024
AK
