COURT NO. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3661/ 2001 (Old No. 25249/1998) Sri Jeeshan Ullah S/o Sri Niyuzu R/o Vill. & P.O. Dhakrani, District Dehradun, …………Petitioner Versus 1. State of U.P., Lucknow. 2. District Horticulture Officer, District Dehradun. 3. Farm Superintendent, Rajkiya Krishi Beej Sambhardhan Prakshetra, Dhakrani, Dehradun. ……….Respondents Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 26th November, 2007 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: I. Issue a writ, or order or directions in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay equal pay for equal work to petitioner as the permanent employees are getting and also direct to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. II. Issue a writ, or order or directions in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner, Annexure No. IV to VI of the Writ Petition by a reasoned and speaking order. III. Issue any other writ, order or directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice. IV. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. In so far as relief no. I is concerned, this prayer cannot be granted in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, respondents are directed to decide the representations of the petitioner contained as Annexure 4 and 6 to the writ petition by a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) Prabodh