2026:UHC:72-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 03 January, 2026 Writ Petition (M/B) No.1133 of 2025 Tribhuvan Singh Bisht & Others ----Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. Petitioners are resident of District Nainital. According to them, they were engaged by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and earlier U.P. Forest Corporation for lopping of trees, collection of fuel wood, grading and stacking of timber in the depot, etc.; however, now the work, which was earlier being done manually, has been decided to be done by hydra machines through contractor and tender notice has been invited in this regard. It is contended that if contract, pursuant to the tender notice, is given and 1 2026:UHC:72-DB the work is done by using machines, then it will cause serious prejudice to petitioners and other similarly situate persons, who are dependent on Forest Development Corporation for employment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid works cannot be done efficiently by using machines and manual labour is necessary for performing these tasks. 3. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, on instructions however, submits that only the work of grading and stacking of timber has been decided to be done by using machines and all other work would be done, manually, as before. He also submits that persons like the petitioners, who are traditionally engaged by the Corporation, would continue to be so engaged for other works and their apprehension is unfounded. 4. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, contends that whether the work is feasible through machines or not, cannot be a subject matter of debate in a writ petition, as it is for the employer to decide how a given work has to be 2 2026:UHC:72-DB done. 5. We find substance in the said contention. While exercising power of judicial review, this Court cannot sit in judgment over decision taken by the employer regarding the manner of getting a given job done. Whether the work can be done more efficiently manually or by using machines has to be decided by the employer. 6. Without expressing any further opinion in the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by taking the statement made by Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation, on record. Petitioners shall be permitted to continue, as before, subject to availability of work. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 03.01.2026 Rajni 3