Uttarakhand High Court
Leeladhar Satyawali vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 October, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 121 of 2019
Leeladhar Satyawali
and others. ..................... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ...............Respondents
Present:
Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Mr. Amit Satyawali, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for State.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant writ petition was earlier allowed on 10.01.2019
against which Special Appeal No. 930 of 2019 was preferred. In
addition to this, some other similar writ petitions were also
decided and one such writ petition is WPSS No. 117 of 2019
which was allowed on the same date i.e. on 10.01.2019 against
which Special Appeal No. 928 of 2018 was preferred by the State,
however, Special Appeal was dismissed with liberty to file
review application on 02.11.2019. Against the judgment dated
10.01.2019 passed in the present writ petition, one more Special
Appeal No. 930 of 2019 was also filed and the same was decided
in terms of order dated 02.11.2019 passed in Special Appeal No.
928 of 2019. Thereafter, in view of liberty as granted by the
Division Bench, Review Application No. 198 of 2020 was
preferred by the State and the same was dismissed by the
Coordinate Bench on 20.03.2020. Against the judgment dated
20.03.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Review Application No. 198 of 2020, Civil Appeals No. 5897 -
5899 of 2022 were preferred before the Apex Court and the same
were allowed on 01.09.2022, which reads as under:
"Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants points out
that the services of the respondents were disengaged
for considerable periods of time running into gaps
such as 11 years and 20 years and thus that is the
distinguishing feature from the judgment which has
persuaded the learned Single Judge to pass impugned
orders without examining the facts of each case.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that such disengagement was
contrary to the orders passed by the Court though
the facts remain that they were not employed during
that period of time.
We are thus, of the view that facts of each case
would have to be examined and the matters could not
have been disposed of without obtaining a counter
affidavit and thus, we set aside the impugned orders
and the matters are remitted for consideration before
the learned Single Judge making it clear that we are
not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
one way or the other.
The appeals are allowed accordingly in the
aforesaid terms leaving parties to bear their own
costs.
Liberty is granted to mention before learned
Single Judge for listing."
2. It is relevant that one more Writ Petition (SS) No. 369 of
2019 was filed, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment
passed in the instant Writ Petition (SS) No. 121 of 2019 and while
disposing of WPSS No. 369 of 2019 in terms of judgment passed
in present writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel has not
disputed that the issue is covered by the judgment passed in
WPSS No. 121 of 2019.
3. Now what has happened one more Special Leave to Appeal
was also filed by the State against the judgment passed in WPSS
No. 369 of 2019 i.e. Special Leave to Appeal No. 1131 - 1133 of
2021, which was dismissed by the Apex Court on 25.03.2025.
4. Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in
WPSS No. 369 of 2019 was, in fact, affirmed by the Apex Court by
judgment dated 25.03.2025 and this petition was disposed of in
terms of judgment passed in the present writ petition, however,
in this case, the Apex Court has remanded the matter. He submits
that once the judgment passed in WPSS No. 369 of 2019 was
affirmed by the Apex Court, then there is no scope to consider the
matter of each of the individual in the light of judgment of Apex
Court dated 01.09.2022 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5897 - 5899 of
2022 and in fact, now after remand the issue is covered by the
subsequent judgment of Apex Court dated 25.03.2025.
5. List on 31.10.2025 on top of the board along with other
connected petitions.
6. Secretary, Revenue shall join the proceedings through V.C.
and the District Magistrate shall also remain present in Court.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
29.10.2025
SKS
