HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 120 of 2002 609(S/B) Rakesh Singh S/o Sri Heera Singh and another …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Mr. A.D. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the operation of the order dated 01- 10-2001 passed by the Respondent No.2 contained in Annexure no.7 of the writ petition till the pendency of the present writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the entire salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioners from June 2000 onward for a period of last 19 months and month by month in future. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) To award the cost to the petitioners.” 2. Today the case is fixed for admission. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioners were appointed by the Selection Committee on the post of Ward boys (Class-IV) employees. The petitioners have been regularly paid salaries till May, 2000. Thereafter, on 20/05/2000 an inquiry was set up on 2 the complaint challenging the legality of the appointment of the petitioners. It was held that the appointment of the petitioners has been made illegally. Thereafter, the petitioners were not paid salary from June, 2000 to till date. Hence the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not a public servants. The petitioners have an alternative remedy before the Public Service Tribunal, as such, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should have first approached to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. This controversy has been resolved by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S) and Nand Ballabh Pant Vs. State passed in Writ petition No.257 of 2005 (S/B). This case is squarely covered by the above judgments. 4. In view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioners have an alternative remedy before the Public Service Tribunal, as such, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners should have first approached to the Tribunal. The petitioners are also not entitled to the equitable reliefs by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In view of above, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioners can seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while computing the period of limitation to entertain 3 such petition to be filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this court. Original documents, if any, may be returned to the petitioners if the petitioners desire so provided they furnish the copy of the said order in the Registry. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) 3rd September, 2009 Shiv 4