IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3715 of 2001 Dinesh Chandra Chamoli & others …….Petitioners. Versus Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & others …..Respondents Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the H.N.B. Garhwal University. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents at length. This petition has been filed by various petitioners, who claim to be Lab Assistants in H.N.B. Garhwal University. They claim parity with other Lab Assistants of other universities. The H.N.B. Garhwal University constituted a Sub-Committee for the purposes which recommended a particular salary to be given to the petitioners in parity with the Lab Assistants of other universities. Consequently the State Government started giving the said salary to the petitioners. Although the salary recommended by the Sub-Committee was given to the petitioners between 1992 to 1996, subsequently it was withdrawn. The petitioners now contend that this withdrawal of the revised pay scale is unjust and have made the following prayers :- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the record of the case and quashing order dated 1.10.1996 issued by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure no. VIII to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.10.96 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure no. VII to the writ petition). (iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary in revised pay scale of Rs. 1400 – 2600/- from 1.1.1986 to Oct. 1992 alongwith interest of 18 %. (iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to keep on paying salary in the revised scale of Rs. 1400 to 2600/- and not to recover salary in pursuance of the order dated 1.10.96. 2 (v) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (vi) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. During the pendency of the Writ Petition a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the H.N.B. Garhwal University has again reiterated its stand vide letters dated 24.10.2008 and 25.10.2008 to the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Uttarakhand. Learned counsel representing the H.N.B. Garhwal University Sri J.P. Joshi accepts the veracity of these documents and submits that such a recommendation has been sent by the University to the State Government. On this set of facts and pleadings, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Sri H.M. Raturi also states that it would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case if the authorities of the State Government is directed to take a decision on the said recommendation filed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the supplementary affidavit. In view of the aforesaid, the concerned authority of the State Government is directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.8.2010 Avneet