HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 137 of 2009 (S/S) Dev Chandra Yadav S/o Lalmani, Working as Chaukidar, Survey Office, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others. … Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: February 18,2009: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to pay the arrears as prayed by him in his representations dated 18.09.2007, 07.01.2008 and 28.01.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that inspite of various representations of the petitioner he has not been paid promotional pay-scale from 01.01.1996, annual increment of the year 2006 and also salary for the period 01.01.2009 to 09.01.2009 though in this regard he had submitted medical certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that representations of the petitioner deliberately are not being placed before the District Magistrate by the concerned Clerk. In paragraph- 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the concerned dealing clerk is harassing the petitioner and not placing his file before the Competent Authority and 2 also making undue demand from the petitioner. Relevant portion of paragraph no.2 is quoted hereunder:- “2. ….that the petitioner is optee for State of Uttar Pradesh, working in the Survey Department as a Chaukidar. His relieving order has been passed by this Hon’ble Court, but till date he has not been relieved for State of Uttar Pradesh and he moved his representation in regard to the arrears of his increment and promotional scale since 16 October, 2003 and since April 2006 increment has not been given to the petitioner. Yet this entry has been made in the Service Book, but the payment has not been given to the petitioner. By this manner, the concerned Dealing Cashier/Clerk is harassing to the petitioner and demanding undue demand for granting the arrears due to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has moved an application on 07.01.2008 and on 18.09.2007. Later on, he has moved his representation on 28.01.2009. All are pending with the Prabhari Adhikari, Udham Singh Nagar, but till date no any decision has been taken in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is a little pay employee. By this way, the concerned official is harassing to the petitioner. He is not putting the file before the competent authority and is pressurizing to fulfill his sweet-will. For which, the petitioner has always failed. He has no such source of income by which he can satisfy to the concerned Cashier/Clerk of the concerned office………” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel agree that the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for deciding the representations of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is directed to decide the representations of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The District Magistrate will also take into 3 consideration the allegations made by the petitioner against the concerned Clerk and will take suitable action, if the allegations of the petitioner are found to be correct. 5. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 18.02.2009 NCM: