23Rd September vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4583 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

23Rd September vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 23 September, 2025

                                                    2025:UHC:8527-DB



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL


            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
                                 AND
              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY




               WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 391 OF 2025




                        23RD SEPTEMBER, 2025


Dr. Mahendra Singh Negi                     ......          Petitioner


Versus


State of Uttarakhand & others               ......         Respondents




Counsel for the petitioner    :       Ms. Mansi Chauhan, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents   :       Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned
                                      Brief Holder for the State

                               :       Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned
                                      Standing Counsel for the Union of
                                      India / respondent No. 3

                               : Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel for
                                 respondent Nos. 4 to 6 through
                                 video conferencing



The Court made the following:



JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2025:UHC:8527-DB

2) Learned counsel submits that a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion dealing with the

similar issue raised in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 344 of 2024,

titled as 'Chandeshwar Tiwari Vs State of Uttarakhand and

orders', produced as Annexure-13, was pleased to pass

the following order :

"Mr. S.S. Chauhan with Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Counsel(s) for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Pooran Singh Bisht, learned Addl. CSC for the State.

3. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned Counsel for respondent no.3-ICAR.

4. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned Counsel for respondent nos.4 to 6-University.

5. Petitioner is serving as Professor (Agronomy) in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jeolikote, Nainital which is an Extension Center of 'G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology'. 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.

6. 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.

7. Learned Counsel for petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by this Court in WPSB No.333 of

2025:UHC:8527-DB 2023 (Dr. 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.

8. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had made representation highlighting the aforesaid aspect, however his representation was not considered and it was returned by the Chief Establishment Officer of the University. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to move a fresh representation which may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

9. 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 two weeks from the date of its receipt.

10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

3) Another Co-ordinate Bench while disposing of

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 297 of 2025, titled as 'Dr.

Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand and

others', was also pleased to follow the similar order

passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 333 of 2023.

2025:UHC:8527-DB

4) In that view the instant writ petition also stands

disposed of in similar terms.

5) The petitioner is entitled to make a fresh

representation within a week from today. The same shall

be considered and disposed of with a week thereafter.

________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2025 Negi

HIMANS DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5

HU NEGI 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C 18DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2025.09.24 11:34:26 +05'30'