Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1213 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 July, 2025

                                                            2025:UHC:6353-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
  THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
                                   AND
       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
               Writ Petition (S/B) No.297 of 2025
                              21st July, 2025
Dr. Mohammad Sarfraz Khan                                       --Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                    --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Anil Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6 through V.C.


JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.)

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner is serving as Professor (Entomology),

Agriculture College, G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology

Universtity, Pant Nagar. According to petitioner, he enjoys the

status of 'teacher' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Uttar

Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958.

3. According to him, he is being made to retire at the age

of 60 years which is in teeth of policy decision taken by the State

Government on 20.09.2013, whereby, the age of retirement of

teachers of Agriculture University was increased from 60 to 65

years.

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner has referred to a

judgment rendered by this Court in WPSB No.333 of 2023 (Dr.

2025:UHC:6353-DB Anuradha Dutta v. State & others) and batch, decided by a

common judgment dated 21.05.2024. He submits that identical

issue was decided in those writ petitions, therefore, the act of

University authorities, in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60

years, is unjust and improper.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner

had made representation highlighting the aforesaid aspect,

however his representation was not considered. He submits that

petitioner may be permitted to move a fresh representation which

may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to

the petitioner to make fresh representation to the competent

authority in the University. If petitioner makes such

representation within 48 hours, the competent authority shall take

decision there-upon within one week from the date of its receipt.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)

(ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 21.07.2025 BS

BALWANT

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0 2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,

SINGH postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553 DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.07.24 10:08:45 +05'30'