Vipin Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1336 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vipin Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPSS No.456 of 2026
                                  Vipin Sharma                                            ............Petitioner
                                                            Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand and others                     .............Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2, only to the extent whereby the respondent no.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to change/adjust the petitioner in some other post with all consequential service benefits from due date."

4. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in regular service as a Driver with the respondent-Establishment, but due to Bipolar Disorder

- which is a chronic mental health condition - the petitioner is not in a position to discharge his duty as a Driver.

5. The petitioner seeks to be absorbed/adjusted to a post equivalent to the pay scale of a Driver in the respondent- Establishment.

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner has not been removed from the respondent-Establishment; rather, he has been retained in the Department upon the creation of a supernumerary post of Driver after his services were rendered surplus by the Establishment. However, the

petitioner wishes to perform some work and, therefore, prays that the respondent-State to absorb/adjust him against a post carrying the same pay scale.

7. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.

8. List this case on 02.04.2026.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2026 SK