IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.288 of 2009 (S/B) Hari Ram Bhailiya … Petitioner Versus Public Service Tribunal & others … Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 4 Dated: 18.05.2011 Coram Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner, an employee of respondent no.2, was retired on 19.5.2001. In a writ petition, filed before this Court on 29.5.2001, petitioner contended that the decision to retire him was illegal. The said writ petition was decided on 11.8.2008, when this Court, however, directed the petitioner to exhaust his alternative remedy, available before the Public Services Tribunal. Petitioner, accordingly, approached the Public Services Tribunal. Public Services Tribunal noticed that petitioner is an industrial workman, though working in an establishment of the State, and that in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, constituting the Tribunal, Tribunal is not entitled to entertain claims of similar people. On that ground, Tribunal rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed, wherein principally the decision to retire the petitioner on 19.5.2001 has been assailed. We make it clear that we have not gone into the question whether the said decision dated 19.5.2011 is legally sustainable or not, inasmuch as, even if we hold in favour of the petitioner, we will not be in a position to accord appropriate relief to the petitioner, since according to own showing of the petitioner, he has by now, crossed the age of superannuation and without working, we cannot direct payment of salary to the petitioner. We, accordingly, dispose of this writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the Labour Court or to file a suit for recovery of damages for premature retirement of the petitioner, if any, by the respondent no.2. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, after preserving such liberty of the petitioner. Since, we have expressly not gone into the merits of the case, we make it clear that any observation made above will not prevent the appropriate authority, to be approached by the petitioner, to adjudicate upon all issues that may be raised before it. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.05.2011 Rdang