IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 154 of 2007 (S/B) Ratan Singh Bisht, retired Ranger, Forest, S/o Late Sri Bhim Singh Bisht, R/o Durga Colony, Kahsipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ....... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Forest, Dehradun. 2. Chief Conservator, Human Resource Development, Karmik Prabandhan, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Forest Conservator Western Circle, Nainital. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Ramnagar, Division (Nainital). 5. Joint Director, Treasury and Pension Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital ........ Respondents ............ Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S.Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Ratan Singh Bisht has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.03.2007 and letter dated 27.04.2007 and letter dated 27.4.2007 (Annexure Nos. 4, 7 & 8 to this writ petition).] b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover any part of the salary which has already been paid to the petitioner. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of the last drawn salary (at the time of retirement). d) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. e) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. Sri J.P.Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal. 4. Sri G.C.Lakhchaura, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the alternative remedy of filing the claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal is not efficacious in the present case. 5. In this view of the matter and following the Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Bhuwan Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2006 (2) U.D. 439 and Nanda Ballabh Pant Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (W.P.No. 257 (S/B) 2005), we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal for the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. (J.C.S.Rawat , J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 04.07.2007 04.07.2007 A