Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 218 (UTT)

Umesh Shukla v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-03-03

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated 27.11.2012 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) issued by the Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Uttarakhand, whereby the services of the respondent No. 5 have been absorbed on the post of Research Officer inasmuch as the same is contrary to the provisions of Rule 5(1)(e) of the Service Rules, 2006 as amended in 2012. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 5 has been promoted on the post of Senior Research Officer in the Directorate of Budget, Fiscal Planning and Resources, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned Final Seniority List of Research Officer dated 06.08.2021 (Annexure No. 27 to the writ petition). (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Senior Research Officer from the date when the petitioner attained eligibility for consideration for promotion on the post of Senior Research Officer in the Directorate of Budget, Fiscal Planning and Resources, Uttarakhand, Dehradun with all consequential benefits.” 2. The first two reliefs aforesaid are clearly barred by delay and laches. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the absorption of respondent No. 5 on the post of Research Officer made way back on 27.11.2012, and his promotion to the post of Senior Research Officer made on 27.07.2013. Both these events occurred more than 10 years and 9 years ago. 3. The only explanation given by the petitioner is that he gathered information under the Right to Information Act recently, and that is when he came to know of the said absorption and promotion of respondent No. 5. 4. We find this submission of the petitioner fanciful and bereft of any merit. The petitioner is serving in the same department, and he would have been aware of his standing in seniority vis-a-vis his other co-employees, including respondent No. 5. 4. We find this submission of the petitioner fanciful and bereft of any merit. The petitioner is serving in the same department, and he would have been aware of his standing in seniority vis-a-vis his other co-employees, including respondent No. 5. Merely because he made an application under the Right to Information Act recently, that cannot excuse the immense delay in challenging the promotion of respondent No. 5. We, therefore, reject these reliefs as barred by delay and laches. 5. So far as the third relief is concerned, the same squarely falls for consideration by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, since the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are public servants, and the relief sought can be dealt with by the Tribunal. 6. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition so far as reliefs No. (i) and (ii) are concerned. 7. So far as reliefs No. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, we dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise the said reliefs before the Tribunal.