HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 919 of 2025 (S/S) Birendra Singh ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S.Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks directions that the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, be restrained from discharging any further/additional duties other than his normal/scheduled duties of Collection Amin in District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is Chief Personnel Officer. Earlier, the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, was attached in the office of District Magistrate, Dehradun, (“the DM”) which causes anguish amongst the Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial Employees Associations. They made a representation to the DM, Dehradun. Subsequent to it, the attachment of the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, was revoked and he was relieved. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, was once censured in the year 2021, but again, by the order dated 07.09.2024, he has been attached in the office of DM, Dehradun. Therefore. The petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, has earlier been censored for his deeds; he was once attached with the DM Office, Dehradun, but when it was objected to by the Uttarakhand Collectorate Ministerial 2 Employees Association, he was relieved for his position to the Collection Amin. His main duty of that of Collection Amin. If he performs the duties of other employees, it may create annoyance and heart burning. He also submits that earlier also, a representation was made to the Chief Secretary, who has directed the DM, Dehradun, to look into the matter. 5. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the basis of the contents, as written in Para 4 of the writ petition? He submits that this paragraph has wrongly been quoted in the instant petition because the contents, which is quoted in Para 4 of the writ petition, pertain to some other employee. 6. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is Chief Personnel Officer in DM Office, Derhadun; no person has been appointed against his post; the petitioner is getting his salary, as is admissible to him; no obstruction has been made in the discharge of his official duties; the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey, has been attached in the Camp Office of the DM, Dehradun, for smooth functioning. 7. It is not in dispute that the DM, Dehradun, is superior officer of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3, Girish Chandra Pandey. Undoubtedly, no person has been appointed against the post of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has no cause to file the petition. He has nothing to do with it. If a superior officer takes assistance of some other officer for smooth functioning of his official duties, it may have objections to none. Even if earlier the petitioner was attached with the DM Office, Dehradun and he was again sent back, it does not restrain the Superior Officer to seek the services of the petitioner, in any manner, as he deems fit. After all, the purpose is to discharge the official duties, efficiently. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 8. The writ petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 04.08.2025 Ravi Bisht