IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 11 of 2007 (S/B) 1. R.C. Saxena S/o Sri Tej Bahadur Saxena, R/o P-IV/7 Yamuna Colony, District Dehradun. 2. Rajendra Chalisgaonkar S/o Sri Late B.L. Chalisgaonkar, R/o 8 Officers Base Camp, Yamuna Colony, District Dehradun. 3. Romesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sri Prem Lal Gupta, R/o 49 Officers Base Camp, Yamuna Colony, District Dehradun. 4. B.K. Kochar S/o Late Sri N.L. Kochar, Executive Engineer, Kumaon Irrigation Division, Almora, District Almora. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Uttarakhand Shashan, Dehradun. 2. Jugal Kishor Chaudhary S/o Sri Janardan Chaudhary, R/o Gulab Ghati Kathgodam, District Nainital. 3. Bhuwan Chand Devrari S/o Sri Prem Ballabh Devrari, R/o Alakhnanda Apartment, District Dehradun. 4. Amir UI Hasan, Executive Engineer, Maneri Bhali Nirman Khand, Kuteti Devi, District Uttarkashi. 5. Jaipal Singh, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Purola, Distract Dehradun. 6. Gyan Singh, Executive Engineer, Sinchai Nirman Khand, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. 7. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Executive Engineer, Maneri Bhali Nirman Khand III, Chinyalisaur, District Uttarkashi. 8. Chief Engineer & Head of the Department, Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand, District Dehradun. 9. Secretary, Personnel, Uttarakhand Shashan, District Dehradun……… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 8 & 9. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 & 3. None for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mamta Bisth, Advocate for respondent No. 7. 2 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 8 & 9. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 & 3. None for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Counsel with Ms. Mamta Bisth, Advocate for respondent No. 7. 2. Mr. Nanak Chand Gupta, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 8 & 9 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have an alternative, efficacious remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal for the reliefs sought by the petitioners in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate as to how the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petition cannot be granted by the Public Services Tribunal. 4. In view of the availability of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioners of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and following the Division Bench decision in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others reported in 2006(2) U.D. 439 and in the case of Nanda Ballabh Pant Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others (W.P.S.B. No. 257 of 2005), we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3 5. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 19.02.2007 19.02.2007 G