IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.210 of 2010 (S/S) Jai Pal Singh .…Petitioner Versus Commissioner Garhwal Mandal & others … Respondents Mr. Niranjan Bhatt Advocate holding brief of Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reiefs:- “(i) Issue writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon in District Dehradun as per the Seniority list dated 14.09.2001. (ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 10.12.2001 and also dated 04.11.2009 by a speaking and reasoned order within the time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court. (iii) Full cost of the present petition may be allowed to the petitioner. (iv) Any other or such further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that initially petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon by the order dated 06.06.1997 for a period of three months. He continued to work as Seasonal Collection Peon till 30.09.1997 but thereafter services of the petitioner were discontinued without any reason. It is also mentioned in the writ petition that on 14.09.2001 Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun issued seniority list of Seasonal Collection Peon working in district Dehrdun in which name of the petitioner was placed at serial no.51 of the list. After issuance of seniority list dated 14.09.2001 services of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Peon were orally dispensed with by the respondents without any reason. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition is mentioned that the persons, namely, Nand Pal Singh, Prakash Pant & Dev Singh were at serial no.54, 55 & 56 in the seniority list and all these three persons were junior to the petitioner. These Collection Peon were allowed to work as Seasonal Collection Peon but petitioner was disengaged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made several representations to respondent no.2 but no decision has been taken on the representations of the petitioner. He also submitted that lastly petitioner submitted his representation before respondent no.2 on 04.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that 3 this petition may be disposed of with direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 04.11.2009 by speaking and reasoned order. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (V.K.Bist. J,) 06.04.2010 Arti 4