IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 180 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand & another. ………. Appellants Versus District Udham Singh Nagar Seasonal Collection Amin Evam Seasonal Collection Peon Sangh. ……… Respondent Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Counsel with Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up today for final hearing and disposal. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 13th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1667 of 2003 (S/S). Mainly two reliefs were claimed by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The first relief relating to regularization was given up. In so far as the second relief for provision of some service benefits such as house rent allowance, annual increments, group insurance facility, and provident fund, was concerned, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to provide the service benefits, “for which petitioner is entitled in accordance with law”. The learned Single Judge did not adjudicate upon any issue relating to the provision for grant of the aforesaid service benefits nor issued any mandamus directing or commanding the appellants to actually provide any service benefit. It only issued a direction that the benefits be granted or provided if the appellants found the writ petitioner entitled for the same in accordance with law. It was entirely for the appellants to examine the matter and, upon such examination, if the appellants found that the writ petitioner in fact was entitled to the grant of the aforesaid service benefits under law, either all of them or anyone of them, only in that eventuality, the benefits were to be granted. According to us, the aforesaid direction is totally innocuous and cannot be interfered with because if indeed the law entitled the writ petitioner for the grant of the service benefits, these benefits cannot be denied to it. If, however, the law did not entitle it for the grant of the service benefits, the writ petitioner cannot be granted such benefits. In any event, the determination has to be done by the appellants and of course on merits of the case and in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 24.04.2008 24.04.2008 G