IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 702 of 2005 (S/S) Smt. Rita Mishra W/o Sri Praveen Mishra R/o E.S.I. Hospital, G.B. Ganj, Bareilly District – Bareilly (U.P.) … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. President / Secretary, Servants of India Society 846 Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411 004. 3. President/ Vice President Servants of India Society, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar District – Udham Singh Nagar. …Respondents Sri Vinay Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of salary for the period of October, 1998 to March, 2001 @ Rs. 2,500/- p.m. and October, 2003 to April, 2005 @ 3,000/- p.m. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Accountant on regular basis w.e.f. 1.07.1990 and after undergoing necessary training she was posted as an Accountant in Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner on account of her work and conduct was promoted as Supervisor in the said institution on 01.04.2002 and thereafter she had been continuously discharging duty as Supervisor in Servants of India Society, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar till now. 2 The writ petition further reveals that the respondents have stopped the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. October, 1998 to March, 2001 @ Rs. 2,500/- p.m. and thereafter October, 2003 to April, 2005 @ Rs. 3,000/- p.m. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner had made several representations to the respondents authority but they have not paid any heed till date, hence this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The averment made in the writ petition shows that the petitioner has been deprived from her salary for the period stated above by the petitioner in the body of the judgment without consigning any plausible reason. In case, if the petitioner had been working satisfactorily and discharging her duties for the period stated above by her in her writ petition, then she should not have been deprived from her salary. I, in the aforesaid circumstances, think it just and proper to direct the respondents for deciding the representation of the petitioner by the speaking and reasoned order within a period of one month from the date, the petitioner prefers the representation before the respondents. The writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall file the representation before the respondents within a period of 15 days who shall decide the representation of the petitioner thereafter within a period of one month by speaking and reasoned order. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 8th June, 2005 Shiv