IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 379 (S/S) of 2010 Ilam Singh Panwar and 35 others …. Petitioners Versus The Union of India and 4 others … Respondents Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned A.S.G. for the Union of India. (B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned A.S.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioners have sought the following relief- i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of constable G.D., Tradesman and other respective posts on the basis of petitioners past experience in the respondent department as trained volunteers (Guerillas). ii) to 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 crossed the age limit of 40 years. iii) to 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 judgment dated 08- 09-2000 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil Rule) No. 202 of 2 1998, which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition No. 8074 of 2001. iv) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioners. v) to award the cost of 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, and this writ petition may be decided in terms of the aforesaid order. 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 of the opinion that an appropriate representation should be made by the petitioners before the competent authority annexing the judgment of the Gauhati 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.” I have perused the above order dated 02-07-2010 passed by this Court. The controversy involved in the 3 present writ petition is identical in nature to that of 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 by this Court in Writ Petition No. 277 of 2008( S/S), Subdra Devi and others vs. Union of India and others, and it is directed that the petitioners may make a representation before the competent authority, annexing the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. If such a representation is made, the authority concerned would be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Dated: 28-9-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB