Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2063 (UTT)

DIGAMBAR KUMAR BHARTI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/155/2017 · 2025-04-23

Ashish Naithani, Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2931-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.155 of 2017 Digambar Kumar Bharti …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for State : Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned DAG. JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) Petitioner was serving as Forest Range Officer in Laksar Range of Haridwar Forest Division. By means of an order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Haridwar Forest Division, Haridwar, petitioner was attached in the office of Sub Divisional Forest Officer at Roorkee, District Haridwar. In the remark column, it was mentioned that petitioner is being attached as he has not undergone requisite “Forester Training”. Feeling aggrieved by his attachment, petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. Coordinate Bench passed an interim order dated 26.04.2017 staying the effect and operation of the attachment order. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that eight years have gone by since passing of the interim order, and order of attachment has outlived its life as petitioner would have been transferred in the interregnum. He 1 2025:UHC:2931-DB further submits that petitioner’s age was mentioned as 52 years at the time of filing of writ petition, thus he would have attained age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, by now. 4. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Attachment of a government servant is made for a few days/months. The cause of action in the writ petition would not survive after eight years. Even otherwise also, petitioner’s attachment was not by way of punishment but was for the reason that petitioner had not produced the certificate of having successfully completed Forester Training. No civil consequences ensued to the petitioner due to his attachment. Thus, there is no scope of interference. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:23rd April, 2025 NR/ 2