Saroj Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner seeks the directions that the respondents be directed to give her joining.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.02.1986, she was appointed on the post of ANM in the respondents department. Sometime in the year

2008, she fell ill and could not join her duties. On 15.04.2013, she requested the respondents to give her joining, but she was neither allowed to join nor

any dues was paid to her.

At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why should this Court entertain the writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy from the State Public Services Tribunal, as

constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner be given a liberty to make a representation to respondent no.2 within a period of

three weeks and a direction be given to respondent no.2 to decide the representation in the stipulated time.

Learned State counsel would submit that in case, if such a representation is made, the respondents will decide it within a period of three months

after receipt of the same.

The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2 within a period of three weeks from

today with further directions to respondent no.2 that upon such representation having been made, that shall be decided within a period of three months

thereafter. But, in case the dispute is still not resolved, even after consideration of the representation, any writ petition, on the subject, shall not be

entertained by this Court merely on the ground that it is in sequel to the instant writ petition.