IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 06 of 2008 (S/B) Sanjay Raj s/o Shri R.K.Sachan, Assistant Engineer, Tarai Irrigation Division, Nainital …… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Irrigation, Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Chief Engineer and Head of the Department, Irrigation Department, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun, Uttarakhand …… Respondents ………… Sri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S.Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Sri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents. 2. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents, 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 Public Services Tribunal. 3. Sri A.K.Sharma, 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 of this Court in the cases of Bhuwan Chandra Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2006 (2) U.D. 439 and Nanda Ballabh Pant Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (W.P.No. 257 (S/B) 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 for the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 10.01.2008 10.01.2008 A