Khima Nand Palariya vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.S. Pundir, Brief Holder for the State-respondents. The petitioner was sanctioned a casual leave of one day for 17.12.2009. It is alleged that the petitioner availed his casual leave and thereafter the District Education Officer cancelled the leave by an order dated 19.12.2009. After more than 10 months, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 28.10.2010 praying for the quashing of the order of the District Education Officer dated 19.12.2009.

In the opinion of the Court, no explanation has been furnished by the petitioner with regard to the delay in filing the writ petition. Further, the petitioner at this stage cannot be aggrieved by the cancellation of his casual leave by the impugned order since he has already availed that leave prior to the cancellation of the leave. In the event, any action is taken by the respondents pursuant to the impugned order, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. At this stage, the writ petition is premature and is dismissed.