IN TH E H IGH COURT OF UTTARAKH AND AT NAINITAL W RIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 20 0 6 (S/ S) Mohan Chand Gayal ………………..Petitioner. Ver su s State of Uttaranchal and another. ……..……..Respondents. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 13.8 .20 0 8 H on ’ble P.C. Ver m a, J . By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of forester from the date of his junior Uttam Singh Nayal was given promotion and also grant further promotion and consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Plantation Zamadar at 21 Ranikhet Division on 28.9.1965 and retired from the same post on 30.6.2001, whereas one Shri Uttam Singh Nayal was initially appointed in the same division, namely, Soil Conservation Division Ranikhet, on the post of Mali a Class IV post, as on 10.7.1964, but he was promoted to the post of Plantation Zamadar, a Class-III post, on temporary basis in the same forest division as on 9.8.1967 i.e. after about two years from the date of appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was much senior to Shri Uttam Singh Nayal so far as the appointment on the post of Plantation Zamadar is concerned. According to the petitioner, despite being much senior to Shri Uttam Singh Nayal, he was not confirmed on the post of Plantation Zamadar for a number of years, but Shri Uttam Singh Nayal even being much junior to the petitioner, was confirmed on the post of Plantation Zamadar in the year, 1976 after his transfer to the East Almora Forest Division, and he was provided confirmation to the post of Plantation Zamadar retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1973 and thereafter Shri Uttar Singh Nayal was further promoted to the post of Forester as on 25.5.1976. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 3.3.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 342 of 2005 Mohan Chandra Upreti Vs. State of U.A. and another (contained in Annexure No. S.A. 10 to the Supplementary Affidavit. In the said judgment, this Court has observed as under: “The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of arrears of salary. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on an authority of the Allahabad High Court rendered in the case – P. Ram Murthy Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 668, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has granted interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner on the amount of arrears of salary. In view of the above, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 28-02-2005, Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. A writ of Mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of Forester w.e.f. 25-05-1976 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to release entire benefits/ outstanding dues to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents. In case the amount is not paid within the stipulated time the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest on all the outstanding dues @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 4. Perused the facts narrated in the aforesaid judgment. Facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, present writ petition is decided in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 5. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioner on the post of Forester w.e.f. 25-05-1976 with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to release entire benefits/ outstanding dues to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the respondents. In case, the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest on all the outstanding dues @ 6% per annum. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 13.8.2008 Rathour (P.C. Verma, J.)