Ramesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.3.2010. Now a restoration application has been filed by the Petitioner for recalling the order dated 17.3.2010 along with an application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 5552 of 2011). The reasons assigned for delay in filing the restoration application appear to be just and bonafide. Delay condonation application (CLMA No. 5552 of 2011) is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.

The reasons assigned for recalling the order dated 17.3.2010 and restoring the case to its original number appear to be just and bonafide. Restoration Application (MCC No. 380 of 2011) is allowed. Order dated 17.3.2010 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number.

Heard on merits.

The Petitioner is a Senior Assistant in Irrigation Department in the State of Uttarakhand. He had been transferred within Roorkee in District Haridwar in the State of Uttarakhand from one Division of Irrigation Department to another Division i.e. from Design and Drawing Division to Administrative Division. According to the Petitioner, both these Divisions are situated in the same building as well. This order was passed in the year, 2005. Aggrieved against this order, the Petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Ramesh Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1220 of 2006 (S/S). The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.9.2006. Consequently, the Petitioner has filed present writ petition making the following prayers:

I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 and 2, to allow the Petitioner continue in the Design Division as Senior Assistant.

II. To issue any other writ order or direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the Petitioner which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

III. Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.

Evidently, the Petitioner is seeking the same relief, which has earlier been rejected in earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1220 of 2006 (S/S)). In case, the relief is granted to the Petitioner, it would mean sending the Petitioner back to the post of Senior Assistant in the Design and Drawing Division of Irrigation Department at Roorkee, Haridwar. The writ petition is being dismissed, as the matter already stands adjudicated.

No order as to costs.