IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1168 of 2009 (S/S) Umesh Chandra S/o Sri Bachi Ram Presently posted as Chowkidar, Temporary Division Lok Nirman Vibhag, Bhowali, District Nainital. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Chief Engineer, Level –I, Public Works Department, Dehradun. 3. The Executive Engineer Temporary Division, Public Works Department, Bhowali, District Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the ceiling limit imposed in respect of salary payable to the work charge employees, vide Government Order dated 26.08.1999, is illegal. A mandamus has also been sought directing the 2 respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.08.1999. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages with the respondent Public Works Department, in the year 1981. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was taken into work charge establishment in the year 1985, as Beldar, and since then, working in said establishment. It has further been stated that vide Government Order dated 26.08.1999, a ceiling was imposed on the payment of dearness allowance to the work charge employees. Said Government Order was challenged by some similarly situated work charge employees by filing Writ Petition No. 1235 (S/B) of 2002. It is further stated that this Court allowed said writ petition and quashed the Government Order. It appears that the State of Uttaranchal preferred Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005. After hearing the parties, said appeal was dismissed and the impugned Government Order dated 26.08.1999, stood quashed. A copy of said judgment has been filed with the writ petition as Annexure –3 (State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Pushkar Bhatt and others, (2006) 1 U.D. 587). It is stated in the writ petition that after the Government Order has already been quashed, the respondents have no right to withhold the dearness 3 allowance payable to the petitioner under the garb of said Government Order. Hence, this writ petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 04.03.2006, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005; State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Pushkar Bhatt and others, has already been complied with in respect of writ petitioners / respondents of said case. It is further contended that petitioner being similarly situated, cannot be denied the dearness allowance after the impugned Government Order dated 26.08.1999, stood quashed. 5) Since, on the same issue, Division Bench of this Court has already quashed the Government Order dated 26.08.1999, in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005; State of Uttaranchal and others Vs. Pushkar Bhatt and others, this Court (Single Judge Bench) is bound by the judgment passed by the Division Bench. Otherwise also, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to withhold the dearness allowance which has already been paid to similarly situated persons in compliance of order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005. 6) Therefore, the writ petition is summarily disposed of directing the respondents to pay the arrears of dearness allowance to the petitioner in the same manner 4 it was paid to the writ petitioners / respondents in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005, within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, provided his case is similar to the writ petitioners / respondents of said case. (Interim Relief Application No. 10571 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. December 04, 2009. H. Negi