IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 48 of 2010 Shri Rajendra Singh .……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another .………. Respondents. Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of decision: 31-03-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Notice to respondent No. 1. On our asking, Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states, that it is not necessary for the respondents to file a formal counter affidavit, on account of the fact, that all the relevant facts have been duly noticed by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand in the impugned order dated 09.03.2010. He accordingly states, that the controversy be disposed of finally, today itself. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sequence of facts brought to our notice reveal, that the petitioner was reverted from service as a consequence of a regular departmental inquiry held against him by an order dated 12.09.1996. The petitioner availed of his administrative remedies, which culminating in passing of an order dated 12.05.1999, whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was entertained. It was not disposed of at the motion stage. Eventually, by an order dated 01.05.2008, i.e. after the writ petition had remained pending in this Court 2 for about six years, this Court relegated the petitioner to his remedy before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. 5. In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2002, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 126 of 2009 before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. The Tribunal, by its order dated 09.03.2010, dismissed the claim petition on account of its conclusion, that the claim petition had been filed one and a half years after Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2002 was disposed of. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the reasons relied upon by the petitioner, to explain the delay in approaching the Tribunal, was a cooked up story. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that the petitioner asserted before the Tribunal, that he was not aware of the final disposal of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2002 by this Court. The case set up by him was, that he had come to Nainital in connection with an official inquiry, during the course of which, he became aware of the fact, that Writ Petition (S/B) No. 157 of 2002 had been disposed of. This factual position, according to the petitioner, came to his notice on 03.11.2009, whereupon without wasting any further time, he approached the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand on 27.11.2009. 6. Having considered the determination rendered by the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the conclusion drawn by it, that the petitioner had cooked up his story to explain the delay, is totally mis-founded. The Tribunal has not been able to record that any of the facts depicted in the claim petition were false. The Tribunal has not been able to conclude, that the petitioner had not come to Nainital in connection with an official inquiry on 03.11.2009. There was, therefore, in our view, no justification to record the conclusion, that the petitioner has cooked up his story, so as to explain the delay. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the impugned order dated 09.03.2010 rendered by the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, while disposing of Claim Petition No. 126 of 2009, is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Claim Petition No. 126 of 2009 is accordingly ordered to be revived. The petitioner shall appear before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand 3 on 02.06.2010, either in person or through counsel, whereupon at the convenience of the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand, the claim raised by the petitioner shall be adjudicated upon on merits. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 31.03.2010 31.03.2010 Amit