HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT- NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 24(S/S) of 2004 Ramdayal Singh Bisht S/o Sri Raghuveer Singh, R/o village & Post Office Herbertpur, District Dehradun. …Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Forest Department, Dehradun. 2. Depot Officer Uttaranchal, Forest Development Corporation, Herbertpur Depot, Dehradun. …Respondents. Sri B.P.S. Mer Adv. holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2. And Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J.: Heard Sri B.P.S. Mer, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Divisional Marketing Development Manager, Dehradun who is also the in-charge officer of different depots including the Herbertpur Depot. Vide the impugned order the respondent, while removing the petitioner from the depot gate, has abolished the post of in- charge Scaler at the gate no. 1 & 2 of Herbertpur Gate and the charge of security of the gate has been assigned to some Watchman. Submission of the petitioner is that initially he was appointed on 01.03.1981 as Scaler at Herbertpur Depot and was entrusted with the duties to keep vigilance at the depot gate and also to measure the woods. While the petitioner was discharging his duties satisfactorily, on 25.08.2003, the 2 respondent passed an order by which the petitioner was transferred in place of one Sri Sohan Singh Rana Scaler and in place of the petitioner; one Sri Jogender Singh Rana was posted. When Sri Sohan Singh Rana declined to handover charge to the petitioner, the petitioner made a complaint to the authorities concerned against Sohan Singh Rana who refused to hand over charge of the gate to the petitioner where the petitioner was posted. The respondent instead of taking action against Sri Sohan Singh Rana, vide its impugned order, has abolished the post of Scalar at the gate and the charge of security was handed over to some Watchman. Against the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and this Court on 15.01.2004 passed order permitting the petitioner to continue at the gate of Herbertpur depot. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit. In para-11 of the counter affidavit it has been submitted that generally, the Watchmen/Chaukidar is posted at the depot gate. The Chaukidar keeps a register with him and entries are made in respect of export and import of woods from the depot. He also keeps general watch so that theft etc. may not happen. Apart from posting of Chaukidar, Scalar is also posted at the depot gate for supervision. At present there are two depots i.e. depot no.1 and 3 in the Herbertpur depot. Posting of the petitioner at depot gate was given by the Depot Officer of depot no. 1 but subsequently Deport Officer of depot no. 3 of the same depot posted Sohan Singh Rana at the same depot where the petitioner was posted. This created confusion and conflict between Sohan Singh Rana and the petitioner. Consequently, to avoid conflicting situation, the order impugned was passed by the Divisional Marketing Manager, Dehradun by which the charge of security at the gate where the 3 petitioner and Sri Sohan Singh Rana were posted, was handed over to Chaukidar. But while passing the impugned order, the respondent did not pass specific order regarding place of posting of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that at the depot gate, generally a Scaler is also posted alongwith the Chaukidar but there are some gates where only Chaukidar is posted for the security purposes and, as such, it is not necessary that an Scaler also should be posted at the gate. Mainly the work of a Scaler is to measure the woods available with the depot and, as such, a Scaler also can be posted at the gate for supervision, but the Scaler cannot claim that he should be posted at the gate permanently. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent but at the same time, the order impugned is also not sustainable in view of the facts that the respondent did not pass specific order regarding place of posting of the petitioner to some other gate or depot. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that keeping in view the interim order passed by this Court on 15.01.2004 subsequent order was passed by the respondent on 27.01.2004 by which the petitioner has been posted at the same gate, a copy of the order has been annexed with the counter affidavit. Since the respondent has already resolved the grievances of the petitioner by passing the order dated 27.01.2004, no order is required to be passed now. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) August 4, 2005: NCM: