Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 808 (UTT)

Gulvir Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2021-12-29

NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, S.K.MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT S.K. Mishra, J. - Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order (Per, S.K.Mishra, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order issued by the Secretary (In-charge), Forest Section-1, Government of Uttarakhand vide its letter no. 651/x-1-2021-04(07)2021 dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure-18) and no. 981/x-1-2021-04(07)/2021 (Annexure-19) dated 29.06.2021 Annexure-19 to the writ application, wherein the representation of the present petitioner Gulveer Singh, wherein the representation of the present petitioner Gulveer Singh for promotion to the Deputy Director has been rejected by the In-charge Secretary of the Forest Department. This representation (Annexure-17) has been rejected on 5th May, 2021. Anneure-18 is also another representation to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, State of Uttarakhand. 3. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that as for Regulation-27 of the dated 27 of the Notification No. 1080/X-1-2017-10(13)/2001 dated 26th July, 2017, the State of Uttarakhand has jurisdiction to give him promotion by relaxation of the Rules. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was retired on 28.02.2018 and after completion of 37 years of service, he was given only once. It is also admitted that in lieu of promotions, he has been given 3 Assured Career Progress and the consequent financial benefits. Now the petitioner after retiring on 28.02.2018, after a lapse of 3 years 10 months, has filed this application with the innocuous prayer of directing the Principal Secretary of Forest Department to take a decision on his representation. 4. We are of the view that such a writ is not maintainable and no mandamus can be issued for disposal of the representation specially in view of the order impugned appearing as at Annexure-17, wherein his representation has already been rejected. 5. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that when the petitioner has already received 3 Assured Career Progression and he has retired in the meantime. There cannot be any further consideration of his case for giving notional promotion with retrospective effect. 6. With that observation, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. There cannot be any further consideration of his case for giving notional promotion with retrospective effect. 6. With that observation, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.