IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 139 of 2003 Gyana Nand Dimire and others. …Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing for sometime states that the Central Administrative Tribunal, while disposing of Original Application No. 687 of 1997 filed by the petitioners herein vide order dated 25.10.2002, had granted liberty to the petitioners herein to agitate the matter before the Departmental Authorities, which may be considered objectively and sympathetically. As such, he states that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to move an appropriate representation before the Departmental Authorities. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to move a representation before the Departmental Authorities for an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 15.3.2010 Avneet