IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1187 of 2010 Pahal Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner, Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was working as a Grading Supervisor in the Herb Development Scheme, which is Cooperative Department in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Vide order dated 31.3.1990 the services of the petitioner were terminated. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which stood transferred to this Court in view of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 31.12.2003. This order was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in special appeal being Special Appeal No. 74 of 2006. In the special appeal only liberty was granted to the department to impose any other punishment to the petitioner beside removal. All the same, during the pendency of the special appeal and the writ petition before this Court, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, yet the petitioner did not receive his post retirement benefits. Hence, the present writ petition. 2 The State of Uttarakhand has filed its counter affidavit wherein the facts made in the writ petition have been admitted and it has not been denied that the petitioner is liable to get the post retirement benefits but they have shifted the liability on the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh in its counter affidavit has also admitted its liability to pay the post retirement benefit, however, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh Ms. Beena Pande has stated that though liability is of the State of Uttar Pradesh yet respondent no. 5 has first to forward the papers, which has not been done. On these admitted facts, writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun which is respondent no. 2 and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Lucknow which is respondent no. 5, both of them shall discuss together and fix the pension as well as all the post retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them and release the same within a further period of six weeks. This is being done on the admitted position that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension and post retirement benefits. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.5.2011 Avneet