1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL. WPSB NO. 45 OF 2009 R.R. Bhatt & others ………Petitioners Versus State Public Service Tribunal, Uttaranchal through its Registrar & others. …….Respondents Dated: 25.11.2009 Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 9.4.2008 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the petition as well as to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer as per select list prepared by DPC held on 8.12.2006. 2. Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order in question is not in the true spirit of the language envisaged under Rule 24 of Public Service 2 Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1992. Learned Brief Holder for the State on the other hand has made a rival contention by submitting that, in case, if the petitioners have any grievance against the impugned order, they may instead of filing the writ petition, file a contempt petition before the learned Tribunal for the execution of the order passed by it on an earlier occasion. 4. It reveals from the impugned order that the Tribunal vide order dated 12.6.2007 issued the direction that the representation filed by the petitioners be decided within ten days and their case be also considered for promotion on the basis of DPC held on 8.12.2006. The Tribunal has further observed in the impugned order that the directions have not been complied so far. The Tribunal has thus issued further direction to decide the representation of the petitioners as well as to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion on the basis of the DPC held on 8.12.2006 as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the light of aforesaid impugned order the petitioners are left with no remedy except to wait for compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal for indefinite period. 5. Without entering into the controversy of the matter, we are of the definite view that the Tribunal should have passed an order by issuing specific direction in this regard to consider the matter pertaining to the petitioners for deciding the representation as well as for their promotion on the basis of the DPC held on 8.12.2006. Without observing any specific time limit in the impugned order the Tribunal has certainly put the petitioners into lurch and to wait for the execution of the order for the 3 indefinite period. It is true that the Tribunal has issued the direction that the matter be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 15 days but the language used by the Tribunal does not indicate anywhere that the Tribunal has in fact commanded the respondents in getting the order executed. 6. The authorities by passing the aforesaid kind of order have shown it inability in getting the order executed which, we are of the view, should not be permissible in the eye of law. In fact by way of passing the impugned order the Tribunal has shirked from its responsibility of getting, the order passed by it, to be executed. 7. We are, therefore, of the view that although no writ of certiorari or mandamus as has been prayed by the petitioners can be issued at this stage but at the same time we direct that the petitioners may approach the Tribunal by moving the contempt petition for getting the order executed and the Tribunal shall pass the appropriate order in case, if any petition under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed before it for execution of its earlier order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 25-11-2009 RG