HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 679 of 2008 (S/S) Lalit Kumar Thapliyal …. Petitioner .. Versus Additional Director, Animal Husbandry (Uttaranchal) Gopeshwar, District Chamoli & another … Respondents Sri N.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 12th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The Additional Director, Animal Husbandry and the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry are present in the Court today with the record. Their personal appearance is dispensed with. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the following relief : “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from Sep 1994 to Dec 1994 and further payment of Mar 1995 onwards. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as junior clerk. C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the salary of the petitioner from month to month regularly. D. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 E. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed from time to time as a Junior Clerk in the year 1993 and 1994 on a leave vacancy. This appointment of the petitioner, from time to time subsisted for a month or so. Now the petitioner relies upon order dated 23.5.1994 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) and states that the petitioner had been appointed on a vacant post by the said order and therefore services of the petitioner should be continued and he should be given salary from month to month regularly. In the counter affidavit, the State has rebutted the contention of the petitioner and has stated that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary which was made only on temporary leave vacancy which occurred as the regular incumbent was on leave. This appointment of the petitioner also was only on a leave vacancy. At no point of time any substantive appointment was given to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner on this score is entirely misconceived. The Court has also seen the original record of this case which clearly demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on the temporary vacancy and the petitioner has no lien on this post. The prayer of the petitioner to this extent is wholly without merit and no relief on this can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner had, however, worked between September, 1994 to December, 1994 and the salary for the said period has not been paid. Regarding this contention the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the salary of the petitioner for this period could not be paid due to Uttarakhand agitation and is still pending before the office of Director of Animal Husbandry, Pauri Garhwal. Therefore, in short, the petitioner is liable to be given salary, which was admissible to him between September, 1994 to December, 1994 for which period he had admittedly worked. Therefore, the Additional Director, 3 Animal Husbandry, Pauri Garhwal is hereby directed to give the salary for the aforesaid period to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the certified copy is given to him. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.10.2009 Avneet