HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT- NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1084(S/S)2005 Bhawani Shankar Kevat S/o Sri Panna Lal Kevat, R/o Udya Bagh, Dehradun. ….Petitioner. Vs. 1. Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 2. Superintending Engineer Towns, Civil Nirman Mandal, Dehradun, 3. Executive Engineer Tunnel & Power House Division, Dak Pathar, Dehradun. …Respondents. Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J.: Heard Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notices for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner withheld from 06.04.2002 to 31.07.2003. Vide order dated 06.04.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner was directed to the retired from services on completion of 58 years’ of his age. The petitioner has challenged the said order through writ petition no. 1751(S/B) 2002. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner attained 60 years of his age. the writ petition was listed for hearing on 16.12.2003 and this Court on that date directed the respondents to release all the retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the 2 order. This Court has further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the amount due to him. This Court has further held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get salary for the remaining period. Neither any Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.12.2003 by which this Court has held that the petitioner shall not get the salary for the remaining period, nor any review application has been filed by the petitioner, hence the petitioner cannot be granted relief for release of the withheld salary. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) August 8,2005: NCM: