IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 92 of 2006 State & Others .…. Appellants Versus Laxmi Narayan …… Respondent/Petitioner April 13, 2009 Mrs. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the respondent/petitioner. HON’BLE V.K. GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that some executive instructions and some Government Orders which may or may not have relevance and applicability to the facts of this case were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by the respective parties with the result that the learned Single Judge in the course of the impugned judgment could not and did not dwell upon these aspects of the matter. This might have resulted in some prejudice to either of the parties. We are specifically refraining from making particular mention of these Government Orders/executive instructions, but we are of the considered opinion that one or the other Government Order or executive instruction may have a close bearing to the fact in issue, viz., whether in the light of the applicable Government Order/executive instruction, the legal heir of the deceased in the present case was entitled to some type of employment on the principle of “Dying in Harness”. 2 2. The impugned judgment dated 15.2.2006 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Writ Court for hearing and decision afresh. 3. The parties undertake before us not to file any supplementary pleadings. The writ petition on being revived be listed before any appropriate Single Bench in the week commencing 4th May, 2009 in first five cases. 4. Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 13.4.2009 13.4.2009 PRABODH