IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 92 of 2007 State of Uttarakhand and others. …………Appellants. Versus Jayendra Prasad ..……..Respondent. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Learned counsel for the parties have brought to the notice of this Court, that the following prayers were made by the petitioner: “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue and regularise the petitioner’s service on Kanisht Lipik in the pay scale of Rs. 354-550, in the office of Lekha Adhikari, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Kashi, with consequential benefit. (b) To issue an appropriate writ, direction or order to quash the condition limiting the petitioner’s tenure upto 23-2-1989, in order dated 1-11-1988 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) restraining the respondents from removing / terminating the petitioner from the post of Kanisht Lipik (354-550), of the office of Lekha Adhikari, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Kashi. (c) To issue an appropriate writ direction or order to declare the order dated 31-10-1988 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) as illegal, inoperative and unsustainable. (d) To issue such order writ direction or order including an order as to costs which is the circumstances of the case this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” when he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (SB) No. 1119 of 2001. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.5.2007. Learned counsel for the respondent states 2 that the issue of continuation in service, as also, the other prayers made by the petitioner can only be effectively adjudicated upon after prayer made at (c) of the prayer clause is adjudicated upon. It is pointed out, that the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner was not settled by the learned Single Judge, when he disposed of the Writ Petition (SB) No. 1119 of 2001 vide order dated 23.5.2007. In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that the impugned order dated 23.5.2007 be set aside and the controversy be remanded to the learned Single Judge for re-adjudication on merits so as to first record a finding on prayer clause (c) extracted hereinabove. In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.5.2007 disposing of Writ Petition (SB) No. 1119 of 2001 is hereby set aside. The aforesaid writ petition is remanded for re- adjudication by a learned Single Judge in the terms sought by the learned counsel for the rival parties. Interim order earlier passed in favour of the respondent during the pendency of the writ petition shall remain in force during the pendency of the writ petition. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 24.2.2010 Rathour