IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4702 of 2001 (S/S) Narayan Singh Tanganiya and others ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 4651 of 2001 (S/S) Mohan Chand Chaubey ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 7237 of 2001 (S/S) Virendra Singh Khatri ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 7239 of 2001 (S/S) Doongar Singh Parihar and another ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 7240 of 2001 (S/S) Jagdish Chandra ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 235 of 2008 (S/S) Govind Singh Parihar ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Shri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder the State of Uttarakhand. 2 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the private respondents are not present. Heard Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K.C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions praying for payment of salary alongwith interest. The petitioners have also prayed that they should be given an appointment in any other department of the State. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions is, that the petitioners allege that they were appointed in Kumtron Limited and, subsequently, were regularized but are not being paid salary since 1st August, 1998. It is further alleged that the State of U.P. had written letters to all the nodal officers of Uttaranchal region to give preferential treatment to the petitioners for employment in their department inspite of which, the petitioners were not given any appointments. It is alleged that the petitioner are reporting for duty before the company but are not being paid their wages. It is also alleged that the production on the Kumtron Limited has been closed and, consequently, the petitioners have prayed that they may be paid the salary or they may be given an appointment in any other department of the Govt. The petitioners, in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, have contended that Kumtron Limited in which the petitioners were working is a U.P. Govt. undertaking. Even though, it has not been stated in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Kumtron Limited is a company under the Companies Act and is controlled by State of U.P. In view of this specific averment, this Court is of the opinion that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue any 3 direction to the State Government of U.P. This petition is not cognizable and is dismissed on this ground. It is open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievances. Dated 25.03.2010 Shiv (Tarun Agarwala, J.)