IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1315 OF 2006 (S/S) Jai Shankar Prasad ……………….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ……..…….Respondents. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and 6. Smt. Been Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 3. 13.8.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2006, 2.1.2003 contained in Annexure No. 19 and 24 to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner vide order letter No. 847 dated 11.12.2001 was informed by the Soil Conservation Officer, Firtinagar, Tehri Garhwal that he has been finally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 535 of 2002 Jai Shankar Prasad and others Vs. State of U.P. and other. On 9.5.2005, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 11.12.2001 directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with Section 73 of the U.P. Re-organisation Act, 2000. After obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 9.5.2005, petitioner made another representation to the respondents on 25.5.2005 with the copy of the judgment and order passed by this Court through registered post. 2 When no action was taken by the respondents, petitioner sent reminder to the respondents on 6.8.2006 through registered post, but to no effect. Thereafter, on 29.8.2005 the petitioner again sent a reminder to the respondents through registered post. Further on 19.9.2005 the petitioner again sent a reminder to the respondents. Thereafter, on 19.9.2005, petitioner received a letter dated 13.9.2005 sent by Agricultural Director, wherein it was stated that the representation has been sent to them through proper channel on 7.6.2005. Thereafter, since, the respondents were not complying with the order passed by the Court, petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 295 of 2005 Jai Shankar Prasad Vs. Vishwanath Anand. In the said Contempt, Contemnor was directed to appear before the Court or to show cause by 17.5.2006. On 17.6.2006, the respondent produced the documents about the minutes of the meeting and decision of the Committee and on the basis of the statement and the resolution dated 19.12.2005, the contempt petition was dismissed. On 28.8.2006, petitioner received a registered letter containing the order dated 16.5.2005 and covering letter dated 3.7.2006, wherein it was stated that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and the seniority has been fixed in Hill Sub Cadre vide order dated 11.9.2001. 3. Perused the letter dated 16.5.2005. It shows that the petitioner had been appointed for Hill Sub Cadre and his seniority was also fixed in Hill Sub Cadre and had been allotted to Uttaranchal vide order dated 11.9.2001 of Govt. of India. Since, the seniority was already fixed and the petitioner had been appointed for Hill Sub Cadre, therefore, his representation has been rejected. 3 4. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Advisory Committee as the order has been passed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that for other grievances, the petitioner may approach the concerned Public Services Tribunal. 5. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.8.2008 Rathour