CWP(T) No. 5218/2008 23.6.2010 Present: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. In normal course the petitioner would have superannuated on 30.6.2000. However by passing the impugned order dated 27.6.1998 (Annexure A-4), petitioner was retired from service on 30.6.1998. 2. It cannot be disputed that during the pendency of the present petition petitioner would have also retired normally. The question however is as to whether petitioner was to retire w.e.f. 30.6.1998 or 30.6.2000. In support of their respective case the parties have placed on record the material with respect to the petitioner’s age. There is disputed question of facts. 3. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the order dated 27.6.1998 (Annexure A-4), has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or associating the petitioner in any manner. The impugned order entails civil consequences and affect his rights. In this background, the respondents authority are directed to consider the present petition as a representation and take a decision with respect to the petitioner’s age. If ultimately the authority comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was to retire w.e.f. 30.6.2000, they shall also take consequential action of according benefits to him in accordance with law. Needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 23, 2010