HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.708 of 2006 (S/S) Dinesh Chadra Tiwari & others .…Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Tiwari, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. The claim of the petitioners for promotion was rejected on the ground that after final allocation by the Central Government, they joined State of Uttarakhand in the year 2005 whereas process of promotion was already completed in the year 2004. 2. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that regular promotion on higher posts could not be made until allocation process is completed. He submitted that this issue has already been decided by this Court in writ petition no.16 of 2008 (S/B) on 30.11.2010 and the case of the petitioner no.1 is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.11.2010 in writ petition on 16 of 2008 (S/B). 3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also fairly submitted that case of petitioner no.1 is squarely covered by the said judgment. 2 4. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, so far petitioner no.1 is concerned, is allowed in terms of judgment passed by this Court on 30.11.2010 in writ petition no.16 of 2008 (S/B). In respect of other petitioners, the counsel for the petitioners prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to decide their representation. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has no objection in case such order is passed. Therefore, it is provided that in case petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 make representation before respondent no.2 within three weeks from today alongwith copy of this order, the respondent no.2 shall decide the same within a period of one month from the date of submission of representation. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.K.Bist. J,) 25.02.2011 Arti