IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 39 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand & others. .……… Appellants Versus Shailendra Kumar. .………. Respondent Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Through the instant special appeal, the appellants have impugned the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.02.2006, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 555 of 2004 (S/S). A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals, that a direction was issued to the respondents (i.e. the appellants in the instant special appeal) to consider the claim of the respondent for payment of retiral benefits, and thereupon, to release the payment of retiral benefits to him. 2. While assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.02.2006, the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge passed a positive direction to pay retiral benefits to the respondent, and since it is the case of the appellants that the respondent may not be entitled to retiral benefits, the appellants have approached this Court through the instant special appeal. 3. We do not find any merit in the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. As a matter of consideration, it is upon the appellants to take a decision one way or the other, namely, to determine whether the respondent is entitled to retiral benefits or not. It is only in case the respondent is found entitled to pensionary benefits, the same were payable to him in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.02.2006. 2 4. In view of the above, the instant special appeal is hereby disposed of in the same terms as the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.02.2006 with the clarification that it will be open to the appellants to take a decision, whether or not the respondent is entitled to retiral benefits, and, in case he is found not entitled to retiral benefits, there would be no question of paying any such retiral benefits to the respondent. In the background of the order passed by us today, we also consider it just and appropriate to direct the appellants to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent before taking any final decision in the matter. It would be appreciated if the order passed by the appellants, deciding the claim of the respondent for entitlement to retiral benefits, is a well reasoned speaking order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 15.12.2009 15.12.2009 G