Tribhuvan Singh Bisht & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 61 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Tribhuvan Singh Bisht & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 January, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                      2026:UHC:72-DB



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
                         AND
        HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

                        03 January, 2026

           Writ Petition (M/B) No.1133 of 2025


Tribhuvan Singh Bisht & Others                       ----Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                     ----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Petitioners are resident of District Nainital.

According to them, they were engaged by Uttarakhand

Forest Development Corporation and earlier U.P. Forest

Corporation for lopping of trees, collection of fuel wood,

grading and stacking of timber in the depot, etc.;

however, now the work, which was earlier being done

manually, has been decided to be done by hydra

machines through contractor and tender notice has

been invited in this regard. It is contended that if

contract, pursuant to the tender notice, is given and

2026:UHC:72-DB

the work is done by using machines, then it will cause

serious prejudice to petitioners and other similarly

situate persons, who are dependent on Forest

Development Corporation for employment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the aforesaid works cannot be done efficiently by

using machines and manual labour is necessary for

performing these tasks.

3. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel

appearing for the Corporation, on instructions however,

submits that only the work of grading and stacking of

timber has been decided to be done by using machines

and all other work would be done, manually, as before.

He also submits that persons like the petitioners, who

are traditionally engaged by the Corporation, would

continue to be so engaged for other works and their

apprehension is unfounded.

4. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the

Corporation, however, contends that whether the work

is feasible through machines or not, cannot be a

subject matter of debate in a writ petition, as it is for

the employer to decide how a given work has to be

2026:UHC:72-DB

done.

5. We find substance in the said contention.

While exercising power of judicial review, this Court

cannot sit in judgment over decision taken by the

employer regarding the manner of getting a given job

done. Whether the work can be done more efficiently

manually or by using machines has to be decided by

the employer.

6. Without expressing any further opinion in the

matter, we dispose of the writ petition by taking the

statement made by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel

for the Corporation, on record. Petitioners shall be

permitted to continue, as before, subject to availability

of work.

_______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 03.01.2026 Rajni