IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 315 OF 2009 (S/S) Jahangir Alam …………Petitioner. Versus District Basic Education Officer and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.1.2009 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure –4 to the writ petition). 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh as Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government College in the year, 1996, however, no formal orders were issued. He was issued appointment letter on 10.7.1997 and after obtaining the appointment letter, he joined his duties on 11.7.1997. Since the joining of the petitioner delayed as compared to the joining of other candidates, the petitioner submitted a representation on 1.5.1998 before the District Basic Education Officer, Haridwar praying that his seniority be considered w.e.f. March, 1996 as given to other persons and to give him other service benefits for the period from March 1996 to 10.7.1997. When the representation of the petitioner was not decided, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 17621 of 1998 before the High Court of Allahabad praying that he should be given salary of the period from March 1996 to July 1997 (the period when he was illegally restrained to join) and also his seniority be calculated from March, 1996 as has been calculated in the case of similarly situated appointee. 4. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the said writ petition was transferred to this High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organisation Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) and was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 2281 (S/S) of 2001. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2007 directing the Basic Education Officer, Haridwar to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 1.5.1998. Consequent to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2281 (S/S) of 2001, vide order dated 30.1.2009, seniority was given to the petitioner from March, 1996. However, the petitioner’s claim for salary during this period i.e. from March, 1996 to 10.7.1997 has been rejected. 5. What was required by the concerned authority was to consider the claim of the seniority, which has been rightly given to the petitioner. On this, now no issue survives. The petitioner cannot be given salary for the period for which he has admittedly not worked. The instant writ petition has, therefore, no merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.12.2010 Rathour