IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 420 of 2004 (S/S) Sidh Nath Mishra S/o Sri Praduman Mishra R/o Gangapur Kiteha Udham Singh Nagar Working as Mate in P.W. D. , Rudarpur … Petitioner Versus The Executive Engineer P.W. D. Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar & others. … Respondents Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Yadav and Sri Nand Prasad learned Standing Counsel. Both the parties have agreed that the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to give the arrears due to the petitioner as permissible under the law and as per the settlement (Annex-2) to the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working charge mate and he has initiated the proceedings before Conciliation Officer, Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar on 20.08.1999. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the settlement was made between the parties that the respondent will treat the petitioner as Work Charge employee since 20.08.1999, but the petitioner was getting consolidated salary of Rs. 3600/- per month since 20.08.2001, the respondent no. 2 has not given the arrears of salary since 20.08.1999 to 20.08.2001 to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the settlement dated 16.09.1999. The reference of the same is quoted below:- ^^fofon dk laf{kIr fooj.k v/;{k ih0MCyw0Mh0 fu;fer odZpktZ deZpkjh la?k us eq[; vfHk;Urk yksd fuekZ.k y[kuÅ rFkk vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M :nªiqj m/e flag uxj ds fo:} Jh fl}ukFk feJk dks xsV in ij fu;fer u fd;s tkus ds vkjksi dks ysdj fookn djk;k tk;A fookn dks 3@99 dks dzekafdr fd;k x;k i{kksa dks lalk/ku lfefr ds fuekZ.k fd;s tkus gsrq izfrfuf/kRo fd;k x;k rn~uqlkj lalk/ku lfefr dks xBu fd;k x;k i{kksa ds e/; okrkZ ds mijkUr fuEu izdkj le>kSrk gqvkA 1 lsok;kstd i{k }kjk lgefr nh x;h fd muds Lkkhiu esa nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh ds :Ik esa fu;qDr deZpkjh Jh fl}kukFk feJk dks 10 o”kZ dh lurks”ktud lsok iw.kZ dj fy, tkus ds vk/kkj ij dk;S izHkkfor@ ekfld es fnukad 20@8@99 ls fy, tkus ds vkns’k ns fn, x;s gSA 2 Jfed i{k }kjk lgefr nh x;h fd lsok;kstdks }kjk fookn ls lEcf/kr Jfed Jh fl}kukFk feJk dks dk;Z izHkkfjr ekfld osru ij mDr vkns’k ds vuqlkj dk;Z ij fy, tkus esa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS rFkk muds }kjk fnukad 20@8@99 dks dk;Z Hkkj xzg.k dj fy;k x;k gSA MDr le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij ;wfu;u }kjk Jh fl}ukFk feJk dks fnukad 1@3@99 ls esV ds in ij fu;fer fd;s tkus dh ekax rFkk izLrqr fd;s x;s fookn dks fuLrkj.k gks tkrk gSA” The petitioner has submitted that he was permitted to work as work charge mate since 02.08.2001. In this regard, the respondent no. 2 has passed an order on 10.08.2001. The petitioner has also referred the letter-dated 04.11.2003 by which the respondents have directed to pay the petitioner in accordance with the fifth Pay Commission, as the petitioner has already been absorbed as a Work Charge employee since 20.08.1999. The petitioner has made several representation but of no avail. Counsel for the petitioner has confined himself for the disposal of the representation. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) within a period of six weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- 24.04.2004 ASWAL