IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 14 of 2008 (S/B) Narendra Kumar Bansal, S/o Sri Gyan Chand Vaish, R/o O.B.C.- 76, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. State Public Service Tribunal Dehradun through its Chairman. 2. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Secretariat Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 3. Chief Engineer and Head of the Department, Department of Irrigation, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ... Respondents. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned brief holder for the State-respondents. Dated:- 24-1-2008. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned brief holder for the State-respondents. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to decide the claim petition No.95 of 2005 N.K. Bansal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others within a stipulated time. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on 17.11.1973 in the service of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in the year 1991, he was confirmed in the service. On 28.2.2005, the petitioner was superannuated from the post of Executive Engineer. After the superannuation, the petitioner preferred representation to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 for releasing his retrial dues and pension and after that he sent several reminders for payment of pensionary benefits but all were in vain. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Claim Petition No.95 of 2005 before Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun on 15.12.2005 praying for relief against respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay the full pension along with arrears of pension. It has also been averted that the pleadings have been exchanged and the case is on the verge of final hearing. However, the respondents have sought several adjournments in the matter and the Matter is being delayed. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a handicapped person with permanent disability of 60%. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has also been stated that on 10.1.2008, the respondents were provided time to rebut few facts in the rejoinder affidavit and the case was posted for 22.1.2008. Thereafter, again on 22.1.2008, further time was granted to the respondents to rebut the contents of the rejoinder affidavit and now the case has been listed for 4.2.2008. As such, the petitioner has prayed that the PST, Dehradun may be directed to decide the case expeditiously. The prayer made is innocuous in nature and deserves to be accepted. After considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a retired employee and is a handicapped person with permanent disability of 60% and his case is pending from the year 2005 and also after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice that the PST, Dehradun be directed to decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously. As such, the Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun is directed to decide the Claim Petition No.95 of 2005, N.K. Bansal vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, pending before it expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) Vacation Judge MK