Harish Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2477 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Harish Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 March, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1300 of 2024

Harish Chand                                              ...Petitioner

                               Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others                       ....Respondents


Present:
             Mr. Krishan Mohan Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Narain Dutt, D.A.G. for the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks

direction to resettle the date of his appointment as well as

the direction of this Court passed on 13.09.2017, in WPSS

No. 1765 of 2016, Harish Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand

and others ("the first petition").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. In the first petition, the Court while allowing the

writ petition observed:-

"29 ............................The State must examined the certificate of the petitioner and all the qualifications and if they are in order, grant him appointment order forthwith. It is made clear that the appointment of the petitioner shall also be from the same date as is given to those candidates who have been selected in the selection process. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall

get the salary from the date he joins an institution and shall not be entitled for back-wages.

30. In the light of the discussions and observations made above, writ petition stands allowed.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition

bearing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 404 of 2022, Harish

Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others ("the second

petition") for fixation of the salary from the date when other

candidates participated in the selection process and given

appointment. The second petition was dismissed on

21.11.2023. The Court then observed "The prayer for

monetary benefit and fixation of the salary appears to

be fallacious and misconstrued and the same cannot be

granted to the petitioner. However, no other prayer has

been made by the petitioner regarding the pre-fixation

of his date of appointment; therefore, no relief can be

granted to him for the same."

5. Thereafter instant petition has been filed.

6. In essence, what the petitioner seeks is,

enforcement of this Court's judgment dated 13.09.2017

passed in the first petition. In order to get the fruit of the

order passed in this writ petition, another petition may not

be entertained. There are other provisions for enforcing the

orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

instant petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ

petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.03.2025 Jitendra