JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) - Kashipur Nagar Nigam is in appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1619 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019. 2. The petitioner-Trade Union invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, on behalf of 45 of its members, seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith pay Rs. 2,500/- per year to the members of the petitioner-Trade Union as per the communication dated 15.06.2011; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith pay Rs. 500/- per year to the members of the petitioner-Trade Union as per the proceedings dated 05.03.2014. 3. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge opined that, in terms of Clause 3 of the Government Order dated 15.06.2011, besides the sanitation tools, an additional sum of Rs.2500/- per annum was also required to be paid by the concerned urban local body as extra labour cost to the Paryawaran Mitra, meaning thereby that the former part of Clause 3 of said G.O, which relates to supply of sanitation tools to the Paryawaran Mitras, was to be complied with by the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti, whereas the latter i.e. payment of Rs. 2500/- per annum was to be made by the concerned local body to the concerned Paryawaran Mitras. The respondents were directed to make payment of the enhanced amount of Rs. 500/- per annum to the Paryawaran Mitras from October or November, 2019. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to make payment of Rs. 2,500/- to the members of the petitioner-Trade Union after due verification of their attendance. The amount of Rs. 2,500/- was held payable with effect from 15.06.2011. Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition were directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the members of the petitioner-Union, as per the Government Order dated 05.03.2014, after due verification. The Nagar Nigam, Kashipur is in appeal only against the first direction issued by the learned Single Judge which is for payment of Rs. 2,500/- per annum to each of the members of the petitioner-Union with effect from 15.06.2011. 4. The Nagar Nigam, Kashipur is in appeal only against the first direction issued by the learned Single Judge which is for payment of Rs. 2,500/- per annum to each of the members of the petitioner-Union with effect from 15.06.2011. 4. Sri Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit, placing reliance on the Government Order dated 15.06.2011, that what was required to be supplied to the Paryawaran Mitras, by the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti, were scavenging tools i.e. Handcart, Broomstick, Punjar, Tasla, Basket, etc; for this purpose, the local body was required to be paid Rs. 2,500/- per annum; the obligation of the Nagar Nigam was to pay Rs. 2,500/- per annum, per Paryawaran Mitra, to the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti to enable the latter to procure and supply scavenging tools to each of the members of the petitioner-Union; the construction placed on the said Government Order by the learned Single Judge, that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per annum besides scavenging tools should be given to each of the members of the respondent-Union, is erroneous; and the order under appeal necessitates being set aside. 5. On a reading of Paragraph-3 of the Government Order dated 15.06.2011, it does appear that the obligation to supply scavenging tools to each Paryawaran Mitra is placed on the concerned Mohalla Swachhta Samiti. The obligation of the Nagar Nigam (the local body) is to pay Rs. 2,500/- per annum, per Paryawaran Mitra, to the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti to enable the latter to procure scavenging tools to be supplied to each Paryawaran Mitra. 6. While the submission of Sri Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the obligation of the Nagar Nigam is not for making payment of Rs. 2,500/- per annum to each Paryawaran Mitra, in addition to supply of scavenging tools to them by the Mohalla Swachhta Samiti, has considerable force, it would be inappropriate for us to express any conclusive opinion in this regard, as Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the interpretation to be placed on the said G.O. can be ascertained from the State Government which issued the Government Order; and the understanding of the Nagar Nigam is not conclusive. 7. 7. While this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner is not without merit, the fact remains that the State Government, which issued the said Government Order, has not even filed its counter affidavit in the writ petition. 8. Suffice it, instead of keeping the Special Appeal pending on the file of this Court, to set aside the order under appeal, and restore Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1619 of 2019 to file. As the counter affidavit of the State Government would throw light on the construction to be placed on Paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 15.06.2011, the learned Single Judge shall, after a counter-affidavit is filed by the State Government, adjudicate the writ petition on merits taking into consideration the stand of the State Government, and pass necessary orders thereupon in accordance with law. 9. Sri Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, submits that the counter affidavit of the State Government would be filed within three weeks from today. 10. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the construction to be placed on the Government Order dated 15.06.2011 as these are all matters for the learned Single Judge to consider, after the State Government files its counter-affidavit. 11. Needless to state that, since it is only the construction to be placed on the Government Order dated 15.06.2011, which is under challenge, the Nagar Nigam shall comply with the requirements of the other Government Order dated 05.03.2014. 12. The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.