IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 327 of 2006 Dr. B.K. Awasthi (Retired Medical Officer)…….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …..……Respondents. Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 6. Mrs. Beena Pande, Advocate for respondent no.7 to 9. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner Dr. B.K. Awasthi was appointed as a Medical Officer on an ad-hoc basis in 1992. He submitted his joining report on 31.3.1992. So as to claim regularisation in service, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (SB) No. 8 of 2004. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide an order dated 16.2.2004. By the aforesaid order, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has since been regularised in service w.e.f. 16.3.2005. The aforesaid regularisation of the petitioner is apparent from the approval accorded by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the regularisation of the petitioner in its communication dated 25.9.2009. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims retiral benefits. In the first instance, the claim of the petitioner was opposed on account of the fact that he had not been regularised in the service. The aforesaid objection raised at the hands of the respondents is now not available to the respondents in view of the order dated 25.9.2009 regularising the petitioner against the post of Medical Officer w.e.f. 16.3.2005. In the absence of any serious infirmity in the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of retiral benefits, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition without going into the merits of the claim of 2 the petitioner by directing respondent no. 9 i.e. the Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh to consider the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of retiral benefits consequent upon his having attained the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.3.2005. It will be appreciated if respondent no. 9 after considering the claim of the petitioner passes a well reasoned speaking order. The said order will be communicated to the petitioner within two months of the receipt of the instant order. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the release of the retiral benefits, the same shall be paid to him within a further period of one month. The instant direction to release the retiral benefits is being issued to the State of Uttar Pradesh on account of the fact that it is the said State where the petitioner was inducted into service as also the fact that the regularisation of the services of the petitioner has also been ordered by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Needless to mention that some of the retiral benefits may be payable by the State of Uttarakhand in terms of the provisions of Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 read with Schedule 8 appended thereto. In case the State of Uttar Pradesh deserves to recover any of the retiral benefits released to the petitioner from the State of Uttarakhand, it may do so under the aforesaid provisions, in accordance with law. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 16.2.2010 Avneet