IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 284 of 2008 Chandra Singh Gwal . ….Petitioner. Versus Govt. of Uttarakhand …Respondent. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) Learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to the following factual position depicted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 12.2.2009 :- “5. That it may be submitted that after taking into consideration the opinion of the State Government, representations made by the petitioner and also the order dated 5-9-08 issued by the Chairman S.C./S.T. Commission, Uttarakhand the petitioner has been posted as Additional Director, State Institute of Educational Management and Administerial Training (SIEMAT), Uttarakhand vide Government order no. 29/XXIV-2/09/12 (24)/2009 dated 6-1-2009 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has joined on 12-1-2009. It may be submitted that insofar as the back wages of the petitioner are concerned in this context vide Government order no. 16/XXIV-2/09/01 (26)/2008 dated 27-1-2009 instructions have been issued to the State Project Director, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Dehradun regarding the payment of the back wages.” In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the factual position asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 11.3.2010 Rathour