IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 309 of 2009 (S/S) Mangal Singh & Others ...Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand through The Secretary Forest Secretariat At Dehradun and Others ...Respondents Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral) The petitioners were appointed as Group D employees on the post of Ardali as back as in February, 2015. They filed the present writ petition with a prayer of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners the minimum of pay scale and the dearness allowance as prevalent under the rules and the recommendations of the Government as made applicable to the department, but unfortunately the writ petition lacks pleading to the effect that the petitioner prior to filing a writ of mandamus has raised a claim before the competent authorities and the competent authority has declined to grant the relief or consider the claim or has not taken a decision on a claim raised. 2. Admittedly, the writ petition lacks such pleading that petitioners prior to approaching this Court had approached the authorities for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued because it is beyond the principles which has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment State of Manipur & Others vs. Y. Token Singh & Others reported in 2007 (5) SCC 65, relevant paragraphs of which are quoted hereunder: 17. If the offers of appointments issued in favour of the respondents herein were forged documents, the State could not have been compelled to pay salaries to them from the State exchequer. Any action, which had not been taken by an 2 authority competent therefor and in complete violation of the constitutional and legal framework, would not be binding on the State. In any event, having regard to the fact that the said authority himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not, thus, lack bona fide. 18. Moreover, it was for the respondents who had filed the writ petitions to prove existence of legal right in their favour. They had inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It was, thus, for them to establish existence of a legal right in their favour and a corresponding legal duty in the respondents to continue to be employed. With a view to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were obligated to establish that the appointments had been made upon following the constitutional mandate adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have not been able to show that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. It has also not been shown that the vacancies had been notified to the employment exchange. 3. The issuance of a writ of mandamus is prerogative writs for application of a writ of mandamus it must be supported by affidavit with pleadings to the effect that: (i) The right which is sought to be enforced by issuance is a right of enforcing a statutory claim available to him under law. (ii) There has to be assertion in the affidavit that there was a demand of justice by approach to the authorities, raising a demand to be enforced by raising a claim. (iii) And there has been no decision on the statutory claim thus raised, which may amount to inaction on part of a public authority, thereby amounting to non-performance of the statutory duty. (iv) The mandatory condition is that there has to be an affidavit of the injured person of the inaction on part of public authority. The issue has also been dealt in the judgment of P.K. Banerjee vs. L.J. Simonds & Another reported in AIR (34) 1947 Calcutta 307. 3 4. The wider principles of mandamus has also been considered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in a judgment The Karnal Kaithal Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Karnal vs. The State of Punjab & Another reported in AIR 1959 Punjab 75 as rendered by the Division Bench. (i) Whether the petitioner has a clear and specific legally enforceable right to be claimed by virtue of the relief demanded. (ii) Whether there is a statutory duty imposed on the respondent under the law to act on the same. (iii) The nature of duty to be performed by the authorities is an imperative ministerial character involving a decision not an adjudication as a judgment or discretion is contemplated while performing such imperative act by the authority, and (iv) Whether the petitioner has any other remedy available to enforce his claim as demanded by writ of mandamus, and the enforcement of such a right or demand has been denied. 5. Ultimately it could be said that for enforcing a writ of mandamus there has to be a claim raised, and there is a failure to perform a legal duty under a statute by an authority for enforcement of a legally and judicially enforceable before writ courts. Reference is also given in a judgment of Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1975 SC 460 as well as a judgment of Amrit Lal vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi & Others reported in AIR 1975 SC 538. 6. Thus, this writ petition would stand dismissed on this ground itself as there is no pleading in the writ petition that there is a prior demand of claim. However, for the relief claimed in the writ 4 petition the petitioner may approach to the competent authorities first for redressal of his grievance. This order will not prejudice the above rights of the petitioner for approaching to the authorities. (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 15.02.2019 Pooja