Deepak Sharma vs Public Services Tribunal Uttarakhand, State of Uttarakhand

By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 30.04.2007 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 to the extent, the claim petition was not admitted relating to relief sought relating to rejection of the representation made by the petitioner.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Deepak Sharma was appointed Junior Clerk with Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (for short M.D.D.A).He has pleaded that he become member of the centralized service and promoted to the post of Accountant but no formal orders were passed on which he made certain representation to the authorities concerned on 31.01.2005, and formally promoted as Accountant. However, vide order dated 04.06.2005, his promotion order was cancelled. Said order dated 04.06.2005, was challenged in claim petition No. 55 of 2005 before Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal (respondent No. 1). The said claim petition was allowed and order dated 04.06.2005 was quashed vide order dated 28.03.2006, by the Tribunal. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner made another representation claiming the benefits w.e.f. 01.02.2005, the said representation was rejected, and in another round of litigation claim petition No. 51 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner on which the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.03.2007, directed the authorities to decide representation of the petitioner, a fresh. Once again the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 12.04.2007. Simultaneously, the State Government passed an order, reviving the order dated 04.06.2005, which had already been quashed.

Tribunal has admitted the claim petition against the order dated 12.04.2007, only to the extent, by which the order dated 04.06.2005, was revived. The said order and the order of the rejection of representation of the petitioner are interlinked. The order passed by the State Government was one composite order. That being so if the petitioner is able to show that order reviving the quashed order is illegal, he has a case to argue for consequential benefits.

In the above circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, we dispose of this writ petition, with the observation that claim petition shall be treated to have been admitted against the order dated 12.04.2007, as a whole, challenging the entire order, provided the claim petition is not already finally decided.