Uttarakhand High Court
Birendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 919 of 2025 (S/S)
Birendra Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S.Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G.
for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks directions that the respondent no.3,
Girish Chandra Pandey, be restrained from discharging any
further/additional duties other than his normal/scheduled duties of
Collection Amin in District Dehradun.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is Chief Personnel
Officer. Earlier, the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, was
attached in the office of District Magistrate, Dehradun, ("the DM")
which causes anguish amongst the Uttarakhand Collectorate
Ministerial Employees Associations. They made a representation to the
DM, Dehradun. Subsequent to it, the attachment of the respondent
no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, was revoked and he was relieved. It is
also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3, Girish
Chandra Pandey, was once censured in the year 2021, but again, by
the order dated 07.09.2024, he has been attached in the office of DM,
Dehradun. Therefore. The petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, has earlier been censored
for his deeds; he was once attached with the DM Office, Dehradun, but
when it was objected to by the Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial
Employees Association, he was relieved for his position to the
Collection Amin. His main duty of that of Collection Amin. If he
performs the duties of other employees, it may create annoyance and
heart burning. He also submits that earlier also, a representation was
made to the Chief Secretary, who has directed the DM, Dehradun, to
look into the matter.
5. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the
petitioner as to what is the basis of the contents, as written in Para 4
of the writ petition? He submits that this paragraph has wrongly been
quoted in the instant petition because the contents, which is quoted in
Para 4 of the writ petition, pertain to some other employee.
6. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that the
petitioner is Chief Personnel Officer in DM Office, Derhadun; no
person has been appointed against his post; the petitioner is getting
his salary, as is admissible to him; no obstruction has been made in
the discharge of his official duties; the respondent no.3, Girish
Chandra Pandey, has been attached in the Camp Office of the DM,
Dehradun, for smooth functioning.
7. It is not in dispute that the DM, Dehradun, is superior
officer of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra
Pandey. Undoubtedly, no person has been appointed against the post
of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has no cause to file the petition.
He has nothing to do with it. If a superior officer takes assistance of
some other officer for smooth functioning of his official duties, it may
have objections to none. Even if earlier the petitioner was attached
with the DM Office, Dehradun and he was again sent back, it does not
restrain the Superior Officer to seek the services of the petitioner, in
any manner, as he deems fit. After all, the purpose is to discharge the
official duties, efficiently. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason
to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
04.08.2025
Ravi Bisht
