Satish Kumar Chauhan vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1996. He continued to work as Seasonal Collection Amin till September, 2008. When petitioner was arrested by the vigilance team on 01.09.2008 he was disengaged by the respondents. The petitioner was granted bail on 04.11.2008 in criminal case No. 5 of 2008 which is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation before respondent No. 2 for his reengagement in the department but petitioner has not been reengaged so far.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case and due to this reason he was disengaged from the work. He also submitted that the petitioner has made representation to the respondents more than one year back but his representation has not been decided so far. He also submitted that respondent No. 2 has passed an order in favour of some Lekhpals who were arrested by the vigilance team and were released on bail. Those Lekhpals were permitted to work. He further submitted that though the case of the petitioner is identical but respondent No. 2 has not taken any decision on his representation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer that the representation of the petitioner be decided expeditiously.

Learned Brief Holder does not have any objection if the representation of the petitioner is decided by respondent No. 2.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

(Interim relief application No. 2207 of 2010 also stands disposed of.)