Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4512 (UTT)

VIRENDER SINGH RAVI v. UNION OF INDIA

WPSB/88/2020 · 2025-09-01

Alok Mahra, Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7735-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI RAVINDRA MAITHANI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK MAHRA 1st September, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.88 OF 2020 Virender Singh Ravi …… Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ……Respondents Presence: Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India. (Per: Shri Alok Mahra, J.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “(i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Learned Tribunal in Original Application No.331 /00015/2015 "Virendra Singh Ravi vs. Union of India and others" (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition), along with its effect and operation also, after calling entire records from the respondents and allow the Original Application in toto with all consequential benefits, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition.” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Mali (Gardner) on daily wages in the year 1989 with the respondents; that, on 03.04.1998, the services of the petitioner were terminated; that, thereafter, petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central) Kaulagrah Road, 2 2025:UHC:7735-DB Dehradun challenging the termination order on 20.04.2010, but that claim was dismissed; thereafter, the petitioner challenged his termination by filing AO No.331/00015/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad, Circuit Bench, Nainital, wherein the claim petition of the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2020. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has passed away, during the pendency of this writ petition. 4. Since the petitioner has passed away, therefore, the prayer sought in the writ petition does not survive. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. ALOK MAHRA, J. Dated: 01.09.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacb f28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F 418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.01 17:10:00 +05'30'