2025:UHC:1719-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 307 of 2024 Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Presence:- Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. or the State/respondent. JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.) Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Shorn off all details, the short point that arises, is whether the reliefs, prayed for in the Writ Petition, can be granted? 3. The prayers, sought for in the Writ Petition, are as under:- “(i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to accept the charge relinquishment report dated 31.01.2024 given by the petitioner and to repatriate him back to his parent department w.e.f. 31.01.2024; (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for revocation/quashing of the suspension order bearing No. NIL/XIII-1/2023-13(1) 2023 dated 12.06.2023 passed by the respondent along with quashing of the impugned letter dated 07.03.2024. In light of the fact that the petitioner’s period of deputation ended on 31.01.2024.” 1 2025:UHC:1719-DB 4. To cut the long story short, a reference to the contents of paragraph no. 18 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.11.2024 would suffice. The deposition in paragraph no. 18 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.11.2024 is as under:- “18. That in reply of the contents of paragraph no. 22 (para of the counter affidavit) of the said affidavit it is stated that till the period of deputation i.e. 31.01.2024, the petitioner was duly paid his remuneration/subsistence as per law. However, since after 31.01.2024 the period of deputation has come to an end and the petitioner has informed the State Government about him being relieved unilaterally w.e.f. 31.01.2024 therefore technically the petitioner is not an employee of State of Uttarakhand from the said date and the State is not liable to pay him any subsistence after the said date.” 5. By the aforesaid contents of paragraph 18, the State has clearly dissolved the employer-employee relationship, and has said that the same came to be terminated with effect from 31.01.2024, and that the employer-employee relationship is only notional, and for the purposes of the inquiry. 6. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for having being clarified by the respondent/State by 2 2025:UHC:1719-DB paragraph no. 18, we do not feel it necessary to issue further directions, as sought for by the petitioner. 7. In a sense, the Writ Petition has rendered infructuous, as the reliefs sought have primarily been resolved by the petitioners unilateral action of relieving himself from the post and the affirmation by the respondent supra. The Writ Petition stands disposed off. G. NARENDAR, C.J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 11th March, 2025 SB 3