IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No.6728 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.687 of 2010 (S/S) Prithavi Singh and others. ……Petitioners Versus The Union of India and others. …….Respondents Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Rawal, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pensionary benefits and other service benefits to those petitioners who have been crossed the age limit of 40 years. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment dated 08-09-2010 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil Rule) No.202 of 1998 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No. 8074 of 2001. (iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 02- 07-2010 rendered by this Court in writ petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S), Subdra Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others. This Court on 02-07-2010 in writ petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S), Subdra Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others, passed following order:- “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that an appropriate representation should be made by the petitioners before the competent authority annexing the judgment of the Guwahati High Court, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India. If such a representation is made, the authority would be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly.” The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that this writ petition may be decided in terms of the order dated 02-07-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S), Subdra Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others. I have perused the order dated 02-07-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S). Controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical in nature to that of the writ petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S). In the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 02-07-2010 passed in writ petition No. 277 of 2008 (S/S), Subdra Devi and others Vs. Union of India and others. Accordingly, the petitioner may make a representation before the competent authority annexing the judgment of the Guwahati High Court, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of India. If such a representation is made, the authority would be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Interim relief application stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) 12-08-2010 MK