2026:UHC:4611 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1739 of 2023 09 June, 2026 Bharat Pal Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. D.K. Bankoti, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to pay the petitioner a minimum salary on the basis of the Seventh Pay Commission along with Dearness Allowance. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner on the post of Shramik in the Range Mandal, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve and also regularize the services of the petitioner considering his long services in the department.” 2. According to petitioner, petitioner has been working as a daily-wager Labour (Shramik) with the Forest Department under respondent no.5, Forest Division, Lansdowne, since 2010. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been working regularly and continuously on the said post to the satisfaction of his 2026:UHC:4611 2 superior officers. Therefore, he prays for his regularization as Labour (Shramik) with the respondent department. 4. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General, has validly taken a ground that before seeking a writ of mandamus, petitioner should have approached respondent nos.5 and 6 for redressal of his grievance regarding his regularization, and in the absence of any representation having been made to respondent nos.5 and 6, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. At this, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner be given liberty to file a fresh representation before respondent no.5 within a stipulated period and respondent no.5 be directed to decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously. 6. The submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate find favour with this Court. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. It is provided that petitioner shall submit a representation to respondent no. 5 within a period of two weeks from today, and if such representation is filed before respondent no.5, respondent no.5 shall consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it by passing a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.06.2026 AK