IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 7236 (SS) of 2001 Inder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate present for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was an employee of “Garhwal Jal Sansthan”. According to the petitioner on his own admission he opted 58 years as age for superannuation. All the same, at the fag ends of superannuation he filed claim that he should be superannuated after two years, i.e. on attaining 60 years of age. 3. This argument of the petitioner is totally misconceived as it has been stated in the counter affidavit of “Garhwal Jal Sansthan” that the petitioner opted for retirement on 58 years with certain benefits. This benefit has been given to him hence, the petitioner cannot claim that he should retire at 60 years, particularly at the fag end now. 4. The writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 04.11.2011 VKG