HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 822 of 2025 (S/S) Nazar Mohammad ….....Petitioner Versus Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Vinod Chandra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the respondents. Judgment Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that after retirement, he was not paid his dues, therefore, he had to file Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1331 of 2024, Nazar Mohammad v. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”), which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024. Thereafter, the respondent department had made the payment of gratuity as well as leave encashment, but the interest has not been paid; hence, the instant petition has been filed seeking interest on the retiral dues. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first petition was decided by this Court by order dated 24.07.2024. Since the matter was covered, the Court observed as under:- “6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 1593 of 2021, Balam Singh Aswal vs. Managing Director and Others and Batch, which is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 245 2 of 2022 Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun & Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Batch, vide judgment dated 04.04.2024. The case of the petitioner shall abide by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.06.2022, which is later on affirmed vide judgment dated 04.04.2024 in Special Appeals as stated above.” 4. A bare perusal of the above para 6 of the judgment dated 24.07.2024 reveals that it was decided as covered by the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022 passed by this Court in WP (SS) No. 1593 of 2021, Balam Singh Aswal v. Managing Director and others, and other connected matters (“the second petition”). In the second petition, in para 50, the Court observed as follows:- “50. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents and the respondents are directed to pay the entire retiral benefits with its arrears, as sought for by the petitioners in each of the respective Writ Petition, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” 5. The amount of interest as such has not been directed to paid in the first petition and in the second petition. 6. If a relief is not granted in the earlier petition, can subsequent writ petition may be entertained for this purpose? When this question is posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would submit that he has already moved a representation on 30.01.2025 to the respondent no. 2/General Manager (Operations), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Head Quarter, Dehradun seeking interest, therefore, the respondent no. 2 may be directed to decide the representation in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents gives a statement that the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2025 shall be decided by the respondent no. 2/ General Manager (Operations), 3 Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Head Quarter, Dehradun within a period of one month from today. 8. The Court takes on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 2/ General Manager (Operations), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Head Quarter, Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2025 within one month from today. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.05.2025 Avneet/