IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2002 (SS) Ilam Singh …………………..Petitioner. Versus Pradhan Prabandhak, Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. and another. ……...Respondents. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the petitioner. The petitioner had filed this writ petition way back in the year, 1995 for payment of certain arrears of salary from December, 1994 to June, 1995. The main prayer in the writ petition, hence, is as follows: “i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary of salary from December, 1994 to June, 1995, and other dues which falls due.” The petitioner admittedly was an employee of “Pradhan Prabhandak, Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd., Dehradun” and between 1994 to 1995, he was on deputation in another “sangh” namely “Pradhan Prabhandhak, Dughdha Utpadak, Sahkari Sangh, Ltd., Sri Nagar (Garhwal). The contention of the petitioner is that he was not paid his salary for the period from December, 1994 to June, 1995 by the respondent no. 2. Hence, this writ petition. In paragraph 3.1 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1, it has been stated that he has received instructions from respondent no. 2, who states that though the arrears of the salary are liable to be paid to the petitioner by respondent no. 2, yet the petitioner has not approached the respondent no. 2 for payment of this amount. Since this is an admitted case that there is an arrears of salary pertaining to the period from December, 1994 to June, 1995, where the claim of the petitioner has been accepted by respondent no. 2 and the same is lying with respondent no. 2. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, the amount of arrears for the aforesaid period mentioned above has not been already withdrawn by the petitioner or by any other person authorised by the petitioner on his behalf, the same shall be liable to be given to the petitioner within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent no. 2, in case the petitioner or his heirs or any other authorised person approaches the respondent no. 2 for payment of the said amount. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.12.2009 Rathour