Disposed¶4

Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Sept 2025WPSS/1446/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPSS No. 1442 of 2025 with WPSS Nos. 1444 and 1446 of 2025; daily wage; Security Guard; Arboretum, Kalsi Research Range, Jolly Grant, Dehradun; Forest Range Officer; not to come for duty w.e.f. 01.08.2025; threat of disengagement; appoint someone else on daily wage; representation annexure-2; Silviculturist, Sal Region, Rampur Road, FTI Campus, Haldwani; decision on representation within two weeks; status quo qua service; Ketki Chaudhary; Abhishek Kandwal; Narayan Dutt Standing Counsel; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J; 02.09.2025; writ petitions disposed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no. 4 (Silviculturist, Sal Region, Rampur Road) directed to take decision on the petitioners' representations within two weeks of presentation of certified copy of the order; status quo qua petitioners' service to be maintained for two weeks or till such decision, whichever is earlier.

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSS No. 1442 of 2025
With
WPSS No. 1444 of 2025
WPSS No. 1446 of 2025
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.
Ms.
Ketki
Chaudhary,
Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Kandwal,
learned counsel for the petitioners.
2.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
3.
Since common questions of fact and
law are involved in these petitions,
therefore, these petitions are clubbed
together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity and convenience, facts of WPSS
No. 1442 of 2025 alone are being
considered.
4.
According to petitioner, he is serving
as Security Guard on daily wage in
Arboretum, Kalsi Research Range, Jolly
Grant, Dehradun for the last eight years.
It is further his case that his work and
conduct is satisfactory and there is no
complaint from any quarter against him,
however, Forest Range Officer concerned
has told the petitioner not to come for
duty w.e.f. 01.08.2025.

5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner’s services have
not been dispensed with, as yet and he is
still continuing to serve as Security
Guard, but the threat of disengagement
is looming large over his head. It is
further contended that respondents are

Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shamsheeda Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Upendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anand Mani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd Yasin Vs State of Uttarakhand