IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 279 of 2003 Kundan Singh Bisht ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …Respondents. Mr. T.S. Rautela, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 11th June, 2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.S. Rautela, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the promotion pay scale since 1-2-2000. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Senior Inspector in February, 1986 and therefore relying upon the Government Order dated 2.12.2000, he claims that since he has put in continuous service of 14 years on that post in February 2000, he is liable to be given higher pay-scale, as stipulated in the Government Order dated 2.12.2000. 4. The State on the other hand has relied upon the Government Order dated 8.3.1995 passed by the erstwhile State of U.P. and states that not only the petitioner has to comply the first condition of 14 years’ continuous service, but also second condition, which is six years’ service, after his getting the selection grade. The same conditions are, in fact, stipulated in the Government Order dated 2.12.2000, which is being relied upon by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner though 2 fulfils the first condition, inasmuch as he has put in 14 years of continuous and satisfactory service on the same post, yet he has not fulfilled the second condition, which is six years of service after his getting selection grade, inasmuch as six years come to and end in March, 2001, whereas the petitioner superannuated in January, 2001. As such the petitioner was not entitled for the higher promotion pay-scale. The said relief sought by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be given to him and is hereby denied. Therefore as the main relief prayed by the petitioner is concerned, it is denied and the writ petition to this extent stands dismissed. 5. However, apart from that, the petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to make him the payment of T.A. Bills as well as 10 per cent of the G.P.F., which was withheld by the respondent. The respondents are hence directed to make the payment of T.A. Bills and 10% of the remaining G.P.F. to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today along interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, if not already paid. 6. The instant writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.6.2010 Rathour