Narendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3026 UK

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3026 UK
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Narendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 April, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               MCC No.9 of 2026 for Review Application
                                 In
               Writ Petition (S/S) No. 341 of 2022

Narendra Kumar                                            ...... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                         ..... Respondents

Present:
Mr. Gaurav Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate
for the respondent no.5.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant petition was decided on 20.05.2025.

Now Review Application, MCC No.9 of 2026, has been filed by the

State.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. The relief claimed in the petition has been stated

in Para No.1 of the Court's judgment dated 20.05.2025, which is

as follows:-

"The petitioner is an ex Army man. After his retirement, on 05.01.2008, he was appointed as a Guard in Sub-Jail, Roorkee, District Haridwar through outsourcing agency, namely, Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. ("UPNL")/respondent no. 5. The challenge in this petition is made by the petitioner to the order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4/Superintendent of Jail, Sub-Jail Roorkee, District Haridwar, by which the respondent no. 4 has recommended the respondent no. 5 to remove the petitioner from service. The challenge is also made to the show cause notice dated 13.07.2021 issued by the respondent no. 5, by which an explanation of the petitioner was sought."

4. The chronology of facts, which was necessary to

appreciate the controversy between the parties, has been stated in

Para No.3 of the judgment of this Court, which is as follows:-

"(i) On 13-02-2014, the Jailor, Sub-Jail, Roorkee deputed the petitioner with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Incharge, Sub-Jail, Roorkee till further orders.

(ii) On 08.03.2021, the Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Roorkee sought explanation from the petitioner as to why despite oral communication dated 13.02.2021, he did not join his duties in the jail.

(iii) On 16.03.2021, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice categorically stating that he has been deputed with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee by order dated 13.02.2014.

(iv) On 24.03.2021, another explanation was sought from the petitioner by the respondent no. 5 as to why he is absenting himself from duties w.e.f. 14.02.2021.

(v) On 24.03.2021, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2021 again reiterating that he has been deputed with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee. Not only this, the SDM/Joint Magistrate, Roorkee, on 09.04.2021 wrote to the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner had been working in his security duty from February, 2021 to March, 2021.

(vi) On 09.06.2021 also, the Joint Magistrate, Roorkee wrote to the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner has been in his security duty in the months of April, 2021 and May, 2021.

(vii) Thereafter, on 26.06.2021, the Joint Magistrate, Roorkee relieved the petitioner to join his duties in the Sub-Jail, Roorkee.

(viii) It so happened that in between, on 16.06.2021, a communication was made by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5 to the effect that the petitioner was directed to join his duties in SubJail, Roorkee on 14.02.2021, but he did not join; he was given a notice, but despite that he is absent, therefore, he should be removed from the jail duty. This is impugned.

(ix) Based on the communication dated 16.06.2021 of the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 5, on 13.07.2021, the respondent no. 5/UPNL sought explanation of the petitioner. It is also impugned."

5. In Para No. 15 of the judgment dated 20.05.2025,

this Court observed that, in fact, there is no fault of the petitioner.

He never remained absent. He was wrongly issued notices. The

Court in Para No.15 observed as follows:-

"15. In fact, the communication dated 16.06.2021 has no basis. The petitioner never remained absent. He was continuously giving his duties with the respondent no. 3 pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2014. It appears that the petitioner's voice has never been heard."

6. Accordingly, in Para No.17, this Court passed the

judgment, which is as follows:-

"17. The writ petition is allowed. The communication dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) is quashed. It is directed that based on the

communication dated 16.06.2021 of the respondent no. 5 and the show cause notice dated 13.07.2021, the petitioner shall not be denied resuming his duties at Sub-Jail Roorkee. Having relieved by the respondent no. 3/the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Joint Magistrate on 26.06.2021 (Annexure 10), the petitioner shall join his duties at Sub-Jail Roorkee forthwith."

7. Learned State Counsel submits that the instant

petition was decided on 20.05.2025, but prior to it, on

25.04.2025, the State Government had issued a notification by

which the appointment through outsource agency was banned,

and it was decided that all the vacant positions be filled up by

regular appointment; this Government Order could not be brought

to the notice of the Court while considering the instant petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

has no instructions from the petitioner.

9. A review is permissible only if there is any error

apparent on the face of record. On 20.05.2025, this Court has not

passed any order based on any cause that had arisen post