HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1353 (S/S) of 2004 Dhirendra Singh Kathait S/o Thakur Singh ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……Respondents Dated :- 16th September, 2009 Mr. B. D. Upadhayaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.11.2004 passed by the respondent no.2 (contained in Annexure No.3 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Learned Brief Holder for the State raised an objection that the petitioner has 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 detailed reasons have been assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhuvan Chandra Pandey Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No. 630 of 2006 (S/S) and Nanda Ballabh Pant Vs. State passed in Writ Petition No.257/2005 (S/B). 3. In view of the Section 4 of Public Service Tribunal Act, the petitioner is a public servant working. Thus, this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. 4. I am fortified with the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secy., Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya reported in (2002) 5 SCC p/521 has held as follows:- “11. These appeals are preferred against the order made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. WP No. 47130 of 2000 etc. on 1-2-2001. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by the impugned judgment has held that the petitioner in the said writ petitions has an alternate remedy by way of petitions before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (the Tribunal), and had permitted the writ petitioner therein to approach the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to entertain any such petition to be filed by the writ petitioner without raising any objection as to limitation. There was a further direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously. 12. Mr Sunil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the remedy before the Tribunal under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act is wholly illusory inasmuch as the Tribunal has no power to grant an interim order. Therefore, he contends that the High Court ought not to have relegated the petitioner to a fresh proceeding before the said Tribunal. We do not agree with these arguments of the learned counsel. When the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. In an appropriate case after entertaining the petitions by an aggrieved party if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it has no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself. Having perused the impugned order, we find no infirmity whatsoever in the said order and the High Court was justified in directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. In the said view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek the redressal against his grievances before the Public Service Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner can seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal, while computing the period of limitation to entertain such petition to be filed by the petitioner, will consider the time spent in prosecuting this writ petition in this court. Original documents, if any, may be returned to the petitioner if the petitioner desire so provided he furnishes the copy of the said order in the Registry. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 16.09.2009 LSR