THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 56 of 2008. Kavindra Patiyal S/O Sri Mohan Chandra Patiyal and another. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. Director Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. District Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Pithoragarh. …Respondents. Mr. Lalit Singh Samant, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N.P.Shah, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents. Date August 18, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of termination dated 4-8-2007 passed by respondent no. 2 and also the order dated 23-7-2007 passed by respondent no.1. By the order dated 4-8-2007, the appointment of the petitioners was cancelled by the respondent no.2 in compliance of the order/letter dated 23-7-2007 issued by the respondent no.1. According to the petitioners, they were initially engaged on fixed honorarium of Rs. 20/- per month and thereafter @ Rs. 40/- per month as part-time servants in Class IV cadre. The petitioner were absorbed on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 on the post of Anusevak on 25-2-2006 on different Ayurvedic Hospitals in district Pithoragarh after being duly selected under the departmental policy.. The grievance of the petitioner is that the services of the petitioners were terminated with immediate effect without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by the orders impugned in this writ petition. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26-11-2009 2 rendered by this Court in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others, which was upheld by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 112 of 2010, State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, decided on 7-7-2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this writ petition may be decided in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others which has been confirmed in aforesaid Special Appeal by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 26-11-2009 passed by this Court in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others and that the order of the learned Single Judge has been upheld in the Special Appeal. I have perused the order dated 26-11-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1103 of 2008. Controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical in nature to that of the WPSS No. 1103 of 2008. I have also gone through the order dated 7-7-2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 112 of 2010 thereby the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge has been upheld. In the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the order dated 26-11-2009. The writ petition is allowed in terms of order dated 26-11- 2009 passed in W.P.S.S. No. 1103 of 2008, Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State and others. The impugned order dated 4-8-2007 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as the order dated 23-7-2007 passed by the respondent no.1, in so far as the same relates to the petitioners, are quashed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP