CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramesh Chandra vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 March 2025 · Citation: (2025) 03 UK CK 0945

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1056 Of 2016 (S/S)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 356 words

Alok Kumar Verma,J

1.

The amended memo of writ petition is taken on record.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: -

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 25-04-2012, passed by Respondent No.6 (containing as Annexure no.5 to this writ petition) and appellate order dated 30-03- 2016 (containing as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition) passed by respondent No.5.

(Ia) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/ office letter dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) i.e. respondent no.5.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circum stances of the case.

(III) Award the cost of the petitioner.”

3.

Heard Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondents

4.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate, submitted that the present matter relates to the condition of service of a public servant, therefore, the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy to raise his grievances before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. He has further submitted that petitioner had filed a Writ Petition (WPSS No. 1053 of 2016), which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5.

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, agrees with the submissions of Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate. He has requested to transmit the present writ petition to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal.

6.

As the disputes raised in the present writ petition can be effectively adjudicated by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, with the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and the complete record along with the writ petition, after retaining the copies thereof, is being transmitted to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal for hearing the writ petition as a claim petition in accordance with law.

7.

The Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal is also requested to consider this fact that the present matter has been pending since 2016.