IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 430 OF 2006 H.M. Mishra ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and another. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Date of Decision : 16.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The petitioner herein, in the first instance, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 284 of 2001. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, he had assailed the orders dated 20.6.2000 and 26.6.2000. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petition by an order dated 5.12.2003 by requiring the file of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 284 of 2001 to be transferred to the State Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, obviously on account of being persuaded, that the jurisdiction of the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun should have been invoked by the petitioner, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, however, required the petitioner to amend the pleadings of the Writ Petition so as to make his prayers in conformity with the relief that could have been granted to the petitioner by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun. Relevant part of the order dated 5.4.2006, vide which the aforesaid direction was issued by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, is being extracted hereunder:- “In these circumstances, though the matter has to be adjudicated by this Tribunal on the basis of record transferred to this Tribunal, but writ petition having been dismissed, therefore, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the basis of writ petition which stands dismissed. It has been very clearly stated tin the Public Services Tribunal Act, as to what shall be the procedure for filing applications and in what format the claim petition will be filed before this Tribunal. The format contained in the Act provides for mention of grounds for the relief, details of remedies exhausted and relief sought. In the instant case the relief sought in the writ petition prays for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature 2 of critorary and also to issue suitable order and direction in the nature of mandamus. The adjudication of such prayer which is part of the writ petition, is beyond the scope of this Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is barred from issuing any writ or mandamus as prayed. However, in the light of direction of Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner remains entitled for claiming relief through claim petition from this Tribunal. The petitioner may move suitable amendment in the writ petition so as to bring it within the scope of this Tribunal.” Finding fault with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court again, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. During the course of hearing, it was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun ought to have decided the matter as it was based on the original record transferred by this Court to the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, and that the petitioner should not have been required to amend the Writ Petition so as to amend the prayers in terms of the order dated 5.4.2006 issued by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order of the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, extracted hereinabove, we are rather surprised why the petitioner approached this Court unnecessarily. He had simply been asked to amend the prayer clause of the Writ Petition, earlier filed by him, so as to bring the same in conformity with the reliefs that could have been granted by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in terms of the jurisdiction and powers vested in it. The Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun was fully justified in recording that various writs sought by the petitioner as against the impugned orders dated 20.6.2000 and 26.6.2000 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 284 of 2001 (the record whereof was transferred to the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun) could not have been issued by it (Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun). 4. We are satisfied that the instant Writ Petition is wholly frivolous. The petitioner has unnecessarily wasted this Court’s time on an issue, which was extremely trivial. The petitioner ought to have amended the prayers contained in the Writ Petition so as to bring the same in conformity with the jurisdiction and powers vested with the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun. Not only has the petitioner wasted precious court’s time, the petitioner himself has suffered tremendously, 3 inasmuch as, the instant Writ Petition has remained pending before this Court for a period of four years. A simple application would have resulted in determination of the controversy raised by the petitioner at the hands of the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun, long ago. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and the instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the interest of justice, one further opportunity is granted to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun dated 5.4.2006 within two months from today. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 16.07.2010 Rathour