IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 361 of 2011 Shiv Prasad Sharma ….…….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ................ Respondents Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar Pahwa, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 7. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 12th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dismiss the writ petition without calling for an affidavit by the respondents, inasmuch as, on record there is a judgment rendered by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh, whereby and under, the claim of the petitioner to be recognized as government employee has been rejected. Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court challenging the said decision of the Tribunal. Later on, he himself permitted the said writ petition to be dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, petitioner claimed before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand that his status as a government employee be recognized and he be permitted to work until the age of 60 years which is the age of superannuation of government employees. The said claim was founded on a letter issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the status of the petitioner was recognized as a government employee subject to the outcome of the said writ petition which was pending in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and which was permitted to be dismissed by withdrawal. Inasmuch as, the said writ petition stood dismissed, the recognition thus given by the said letter also stood oblitered. The 2 other contention before the Tribunal at Uttarakhand was that at the time of arranging the petitioner to serve in the State of Uttarakhand, a decision was allegedly taken by the two States that the petitioner and people like the petitioner would be treated as government employees of Uttarakhand. Once, by a binding judgment, the status of the petitioner has been declared to be a non-government employee without successfully challenging the said judgment, by agreement of the parties, who are bound by the said judgment, nothing could be pronounced contrary to the said judgment. Moreover, the Tribunal has correctly held that by an executive decision a government appointment can not be given without offering the same to all and sundry. 2. In the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 12.12.2011 12.12.2011 P. Singh