IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 815 of 2010 (S/S) Kailash Chandra Punetha and others. ……Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for State. Dated:-09-09-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 from the date of their regularization on the post of Work Agent and Rs. 5200-20200 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the petitioners and pay all other consequential benefits and annual increment to the petitioners after the enforcement of new pay scale in the State of Uttarakhand. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being paid new pay scale and other consequential benefits enforced in the State of Uttarakhand as they were working on the post of Work Agent from their initial regular appointment. The petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 4, which is annexed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. But no decision has been taken so far on the representation, moved by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, their appointing authority is respondent No. 4. The grievance of the petitioners that whether they are entitled for the pay scale of Work Agent or not, is to be examined by the officer of the Department. Since the representation, moved by the petitioners is still pending, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to direct respondent No. 4 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 4 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by a speaking and reasoned order. 2 If the petitioners feel that respondent No. 4 is not competent authority to decide the representation, petitioners would be at liberty to move a fresh representation before the appropriate authority and appropriate authority shall also decide the representation by a speaking and reasoned order, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of such representation. (B.S.Verma, J.) 09-09-2010 S