2025:UHC:2870-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI Writ Petition (S/B) No. 6 of 2017 Mohd. Aslam -Petitioner Versus Chief Conservator of Forest and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Additional CSC for the State Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. This writ petition was filed in the year 2017, seeking following relief: “i. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 18.11.2016 and 21.06.2016 as contained to annexure no. 1 & 2 of this writ petition and in league with judgment and order dated 23.01.2015 and 28.08.2015 as contained to annexure no. 3 & 4 to this petition to that extent whereby the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 2000 and 2006 is denied to the petitioner along with its effect and operation also, after calling the entire records from the respondents.” 2. Petitioner was serving as Additional Statistical Officer in forest department. He filed Claim Petition No. 13/DB/2014, claiming notional promotion as Statistical Officer w.e.f. 20.11.2006 with all consequential benefits. The said claim petition was decided by learned Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.01.2015. Operative portion of said judgment 1 2025:UHC:2870-DB is extracted below: “The petition is partly allowed. The State Government is directed to send the matter back to the Commission to reconsider the candidature and suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Statistical Officer providing the Commission all necessary details in the light of findings of the Tribunal in this order for suitable recommendation by the Commission and thereafter, pass an appropriate order in respect of the petitioner. The State Government will complete this exercise within two months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 2 and 3. It is, however, made clear that since the petitioner has already retired on 31.3.2013, the promotion of the persons as per order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure:A3) will remain unaffected. No order as to costs.” 3. Petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition, which was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2015. 4. In terms of the judgment dated 23.01.2015, rendered by learned Tribunal, petitioner’s case for promotion was forwarded to Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and the Commission convened a meeting of Selection Committee on 11.04.2016 and ultimately recommended the petitioner for promotion against vacancy of selection year 2011-12. The State Government, thereafter, passed an order stating that notional promotion can be claimed only from the date of promotion of a junior person and since no person junior to the petitioner was promoted as Statistical Officer and petitioner himself retired on 31.03.2013, therefore it is not possible to give him promotion from a retrospective date, as claimed by the petitioner. 5. Petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking execution of the judgment dated 23.01.2015, rendered by learned Tribunal. The said application has been 2 2025:UHC:2870-DB rejected by learned Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2016 on the ground that there was no positive direction to promote the petitioner as Statistical Officer from a retrospective date and the only direction was to consider his claim, which has been considered by the Competent Authority. Petitioner has challenged the order passed on his execution application on 18.11.2016. 6. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal for rejecting petitioner’s execution application is sound and valid. We do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 7. Learned Tribunal in its judgment dated 23.01.2015 had directed the competent authority to consider petitioner’s claim for promotion and the competent authority has examined the matter and passed an order by giving valid reasons. 8. After decision by the Competent Authority, nothing remained to be executed. Thus, learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the execution application. There is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. __________________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 22nd April, 2025 Mahinder 3