IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 189 (S/S) OF 2006 Mukesh Kumar Gupta, S/o late Sri Banarsi Das Mittal, R/o Mohallakhatiyan Dhampur, District Bijnor. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Irrigation, Department, Uttaranchal Sashan, Dehradun. 2. Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. 3. Superintendent Engineer, Manari Bhali, Construction Division Joshiyara, Uttarkashi. 4. Executive Engineer Manari Bhali, Construction Division, Shakti Puram, Chiniyal Saud, Uttarkashi. ………….Respondents. Dated: 22.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to absorb the petitioner on the post of Supervisor as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. During the course of the argument, the petitioner has confined his prayer only for disposal of the representations dated 5th August, 1989 and 4th March, 2005 (Annexure No. 10 and 11 to the writ petition). Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor (H.R.T.) under work charge establishment in the office of the Executive Engineer Manari Bhali Construction Division Phase-II Shakti Puram, Chiniyali Saud by means of order dated 31.12.1981. The aforesaid appointment was made on the basis of ad-hoc appointment. Though the appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of 28.02.1982 but due to exigency of the work, the extension was given to the petitioner in different intervals of time and it was further extended up to 30.06.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner continued on the said post up to 1987 and again up to 1989. The petitioner was terminated by means of order of Assistant Engineer of Manari Bhali Construction Division on 13.01.1989. According to the submission of the petitioner, High Court of Allahabad had directed to prepare seniority list cadrewise in accordance with law as will appear from the office order dated 15th December, 1988:- fo"k;%& Jh eqds’k dqekj xqIrk rFkk nychj flag ds iquZfu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esaA fiz; egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d d`Ik;k vius i=kad 4086@ eHkLVst &2 ea0@Mcyw] fnukad 28-7-88 ,oa i=kad 5046 6005@eHkkLVst @2ea0 fnukad dze’k 3-8-88 o 5-11-88 dk voyksdu djsa ftlds }kjk vkius mijksDr deZpkjh dk izR;kosnu Hkstk gSA bu izR;kosnuksa ds lEcU/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd Jh eqds’k dqekj xqIrk rFkk cychj flag dh izFke fu;qfDr frfFk 1- 1-82 gS rFkk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns’kuqlkj cukbZ xbZ ofj"Brklwph esa budk uke dzEk’k% 1862 rFkk 1862 ij gS dk;ZizHkkfjr vf/k"Bku esa dk;Zi;Zos{kdksa dh iquZfu;qfDr ofj"Brk dzekad 304 fu;qfDr frfFk 20-6-80 dh x;h gSA vko’;drkuqlkj {ks=h; vf/kdkfj;ksa ls fjDr inksa dh lwpuk miyC/k gksus ij mudh iquZfUk;qfDr ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ’kkuqlkj ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij VªsM okbp dh tk;sxhA IkzR;kosnu ds iSjk 3 esa vafdr fcUnq ijlwpuk ds eq[; vfHk;Urk eqLrj 11 rFkk ;equk ds ;gka nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa dk;Zos{kd yxs gS lEcfU/kr eq[; vfHk;Urkvksa ds fjfDr;ksa dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij ofj"Brk dze ds vuqlkj dk;ZizHkkfjr in ij dh tk;sxhA mi;qZDRkfooj.k ds vk/kkj ij Jh eqds’k dqekj xqIrk rFkk cychj flag dk izR;kosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA eq>s ;g Hkh Kkr djus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd vU; nks deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok;sa vc rd D;ksa ugh lekIr dh x;hA** In view of the office order dated 15th December, 1988, the respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months form the filing of the certified copy of the order on its own merits according to the statutory rules as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 22.02.2006 Rathour