Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Restoration (M.C.C.) Application No.501 of 2008 On behalf of Ashok Kumar ……… Applicant/petitioner. IN Writ Petition (S/S) No.20-A/2003 Ashok Kumar ……… Petitioner Versus Deputy Cane Commissioner/President, Kshetriya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran and others. …….. Respondents. …………… Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Paresh Tripathi, ld. Brief Holder on behalf of State/respondent No.1 Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Restoration application has been filed to recall the order dated 22.4.2008 by which the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and to restore the petition to its original number. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the grounds mentioned in the application. The grounds are satisfactory to allow the application. The application is allowed. Order dated 22.04.2008 is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number alongwith interim order. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties on merit of the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him for the dues incurred by his father to the Cane Cooperative Society. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 20.10.1992 and the petitioner has been appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules on 14.01.1993. At the time of appointment the petitioner and his entire family gave an undertaking that whatever dues are found against his father shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. Initial notice of recovery was given to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 33,577.70, then again second recovery notice was given for Rs.79,549.37 and again third notice of recovery was given to him amounting to Rs. 2,06,344.75. So all these notices show that the dispute relates to the dues. Therefore, in my opinion, it will be appropriate that Deputy Cane Commissioner be directed to settle the dispute of dues against the father of the petitioner then to proceed to recover after taking into account the entire version of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that recovery shall be made only after dues are settled by the Deputy Cane Commissioner against the father of the petitioner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to plead his case. Till then no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. However, no refund shall be made for the recovery already made. The Deputy Cane 3 Commissioner shall decide the dispute within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (P.C.Verma,J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh