Radhe Shyam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2349 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Radhe Shyam vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 March, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Writ Petition No. 324 of 2025 (S/S)
Radhe Shyam                                            ..........Petitioner

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                      ........ Respondents
Present :     Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
              State/respondent nos.1 and 2.


                                 JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the

petitioners seek the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to all for the record of the case and declare the impugned notice / order dated 20-12-2024 (copy Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition) issued by Respondent No.4 along with consequential order of oral termination, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the same.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue with his service on the post occupied by him since 2015 and pay him all consequential benefits.

iii. Issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner"

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that by the impugned communication dated

20.12.2024, issued by the respondent no.3 is stigmatic

and his services have been dispensed with by this order.

He would submit that before issuance of the

communication dated 20.12.2024, no inquiry was

conducted.

4. In fact, the impugned communication dated

20.12.2024, which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition,

does not, in any manner, dispensed with the services of

the petitioner. It has only directed the respondent no.5,

who is a service provider that the petitioner should mend

his ways and the petitioner should work properly. It does

not give any cause to the petitioner to file any petition.

Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to entertain

the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to

be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

5. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.03.2025 Sanjay