IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 225 (SS) of 2008 Subhash Chandra Pant and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 5 and 6. Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel present for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. And Writ Petition No. 1322 (SS) of 2008 Sunil Kumar Kholia and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel present for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel present for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand, Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel present for respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. 1322 (SS) of 2008. The above two writ petitions have been filed by non- centralized employees of “Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital” having rival claims of seniority against each other. The petitioners in writ petition no. 225 (SS) of 2008 claim seniority over respondent nos. 5 and 6 whereas the petitioners in writ petition no. 1322 (SS) of 2008 2 challenge their reversion from the post of Clerk to Peon. All the same, what goes to the root of the matter is the inter se seniority of these employees. No decision has been reached in this matter by either “Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital” or other authorities. In fact, from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of “Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital”, it appears to be evasive in nature. There is nothing definite before this Court as to the stand taken by “Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital” in the present matter. Since the contradiction between the parties has not yet been sorted out, as such, the matter came up before this Court. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate as well as Mr. Kurban Ali, appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have fairly submitted that the matter may be sent to the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital, which will be appropriate authority to decide the matter. In the interest of justice, the matter is sent to the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital, who shall decide the rival claims of the petitioners and take a decision as to the seniority and the consequential promotion and shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him. The Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital shall be at liberty to ask for any details from “Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital”, or any other authority in the matter. Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1322 (SS) of 2008 submitted that till the disposal of the matter by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital, the status quo between the parties shall may maintained. 3 In the interest of justice, it is, therefore, directed that status quo between the parties shall be maintained till the decision is taken by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal Nainital. In view of the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 19.09.2011 VKG