IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 199 of 2006 (S/B) Ved Vyas Gulati S/o Late Dr. Dilbagh Rai Gulati, R/o 233 Phase II, Vasant Vihar, Dehradun. ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Public Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. ……… Respondent Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat. J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondent. They are heard. 2. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a claim petition before the Pubic Services Tribunal. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the alternative remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal is not efficacious in the present case. 4. In this view of the matter and following the Division Bench decisions in the cases of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others reported in 2006(2) U.D. 439 and 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. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal and to seek condonation of the delay in filing the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner was pursuing this writ petition under bonafide belief. 6. Consequently, CLMA No. 7938 of 2006 also stands disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 18.04.2007 18.04.2007 G