IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1748 OF 2002 (SB) Rajendra Prasad ………………Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …………………Respondents. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Govt. 29th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant temporary status to the petitioner under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989, w.e.f. January, 1990, when he completed 240 days in a year as a casual labourer. Further prayer has been made for writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service w.e.f. January, 1990 when he completed 240 days as casual labourer, declaring the action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of petitioner w.e.f. 28.2.1990 as arbitrary and illegal and pay him arrears of wages with all consequential benefits of service including benefit of seniority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted 2 to move a fresh representation stating therein his entire grievances before the Authority concerned and the same may be disposed of within a stipulated time. 3. The prayer is innocuous. However, without going into the merit of the controversy, petitioner is directed to move a fresh representation before the Authority concerned annexing therewith the relevant rules. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of its filing after taking into consideration the relevant rules. 4. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 29.7.2008 Rathour