SUKHBEER SINGH v. PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH
WPSB/116/2026 · 2026-02-27
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3835 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3835 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:1425-DB HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 2 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2 0 2 6 W RI T PETI TI ON ( S/ B) NO. 1 16 OF 2 0 2 6 Sukhbeer Singh
…...Petitioner. Ver su s Public Services Tribunal Circuit Bench & others
….Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr . Man oj Kum ar Gu pt a, C.J.)
1.
The petitioner has assailed the order of the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Nainital (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), dated 12.11.2025, by which, his claim petition bearing No.01/ NB/ DB/ 2025 challenging the order dated 23.09.2016 by Director Agriculture, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, and seeking a further direction that the petitioner be placed over respondent nos.4 to 18, has been rejected on the ground that the challenge was made after nine years, and therefore, the same was barred by inordinate delay and laches.
2.
While coming to the said conclusion, the provisions of Section 5(b)(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 has also been considered. The 1
2026:UHC:1425-DB Tribunal has also observed that the mere fact that petitioner claimed to have made repeated representations would not result in enlargement of limitation.
3.
We find no error in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. The dispute raised by the petitioner would have seriously affected private respondents and the settled seniority between the parties. Therefore, we find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal declining to re-open the issue regarding seniority.
4.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
5.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 27th February, 2026 NI SHANT 2 NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec 2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A05 5CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2026.02.27 17:41:19 +05'30'