IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ petition (SS) No. 6695 of 2001 (Old No. 19667 of 1995) Hridesh Kumar S/o Late Shri B.P. Srivastava R/o N.H.P.C., Hospital, Bambasa District Nainital (U.P.) …..…Petitioner Versus 1. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Tanakpur Hydroelectric Project,Banbasa P.O. Chandani Banbasa, District Nainital Through its Executive Director 2. The Chairman and Managing Director National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., N.H.P.C., Office Complex, Sector 33, Faridabad Haryana 3. Deputy Chief Medical Officer National Hydroelectric Power corporation Ltd. Tanakpur Hydroelectric Project Banbasa, Nainital 4. Director Personnel, National Hydroelectric Project Banbasa, P.O. Chandani, Banbasa District Nainital ……….Respondents Shri B.S. Negi, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri Alok Mehra, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. 2. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner higher pay scale of ` 700-1300 (non-revised) w.e.f. 01.07.1991. A mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to pay salary for the period 06.02.1995 and 20.03.1995. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist Grade-II in the pay scale of ` 330-560 vide appointment letter dated 15.02.1982, and was posted in Salal Hydroelectric Power Project, Jyotipuram, District Udhampur (J & K). Later, he was transferred to Hydroelectric Power Project, Tanakpur. The Petitioner's case is that he was promoted to Grade-I w.e.f., 01.07.1987, in the pay scale of ` 425-800. He has pleaded that he was entitled to pay scale of ` 550-900 (unrevised) after satisfactory service of four years in the pay scale of ` 425-800 which he was denied. He has further pleaded that he made several representations but to no avail. Hence this writ petition was filed before Allahabad High 3 Court from where it was received under section 35 U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. (Central Act, 29 of 2000) 4. Shri B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are ready to consider the representation of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances, if this writ petition is withdrawn by him. 5. In view of the above statement, this writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn and the petitioner is allowed to make representation to the authority concerned for redressal of his grievances. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 05.03.2011