IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 979 OF 2009 (SS) Raje Singh and others. …………Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……..Respondents. Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 11th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate for petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners have filed present writ petition with the following prayer: “A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to pay the payment of salary to the petitioners without imposing any ceiling on the dearness allowances and other allowances as provided to the employees of State Government. B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners from November, 2005 to till dates as admissible dearness allowance etc. C) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. D) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.” The case of the petitioners is that the State Government has imposed a ceiling on the payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are liable to be given dearness allowance and the ceiling imposed on the dearness allowance is absolutely illegal. A bunch of writ petitions were filed before this Court whereby the petitioners had agitated the similar case. These writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State preferred a Special Appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005 State of Uttaranchal and others. Vs. Pushkar Bhatt and others. The Division Bench in this Court had relief upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Motors Workers’ Union Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. and another reported in (1962) 2 L.L.J., 352 and had come to the conclusion that the Government Order dated 26th August, 1999 is absolutely illegal and goes against the spirit of the concept of dearness allowance. However, the Standing Counsel has stated that against the order of the Division Bench, Special Leave Petitions have been filed before the Apex Court, which are still pending and therefore, no interim relief can be granted to the petitioners. This writ petition is being disposed of on the terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 66 of 2005. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.11.2009 Rathour