Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7793 (UTT)

VIMAL PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1624/2026 · 2026-07-08

Pankaj Purohit

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010107812026 2026:UHC:5534 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No.1624 of 2026 08th July, 2026 Vimal Prasad ……….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Shruti Joshi, Legal Aid for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.04.2026, annexure no.4 to the writ petition, whereby representation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Co-ordinate Bench’s order dated 02.04.2026, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason on the basis of which representation of the petitioner was rejected is totally uncalled for as the direction was issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court permitting the petitioner to make a representation only on the premise that the petitioner submits before the Co- ordinate Bench that he may be accommodated in any other post, if the post of Driver is not available. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting representation of the petitioner this aspect has not been considered rather the representation was rejected on the ground that the respondent-Department is hiring vehicles along with Drivers and no vehicle is available with the respondent-Department. The rejection order is totally against the intent of the order passed by 1 UKHC010107812026 2026:UHC:5534 the Co-ordinate Bench. 4. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned order – rejecting the representation of the petitioner – is hereby quashed. However respondent no.2 is directed to pass a fresh order on the representation, annexure no.3 of the writ petition, of the petitioner considering his claim for accommodation against any other post with the respondent-Department within four weeks from today. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.07.2026 SK 2 SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN Digitally signed by SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a29a2f80b93835a432d093afc472d9355959ee0ff878380c645e17d546a24821, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=B505B049BA2FDAC35E7AE325DEE1505D6C35AF3D290C229CDC609D61801E1E4F, cn=SHUBHAM KAPRUWAN Date: 2026.07.08 16:10:50 +05'30'