IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 260 of 2008 Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan through Its Chief General Manager, Jal Bhawan Dehradun, District Dehradun. ……Appellant. Versus Nand Kishore Dobhal S/o Sri Jiya Lal Dobhal R/o Village Balawala Post Balawala, Dehradun District Dehradun. .……….Respondent. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Oral:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is urgency application No. 308 of 2009, for taking up the Special Appeal, filed by the appellant/respondent. The application is allowed. The matter is taken up today in the presence of the parties. 2. This is amendment application No. 891 of 2009, for making a clerical correction in the stay application for deleting word “vacation”. The application is allowed. The amendment is incorporated in the court. 3. Also, heard on delay condonation application No. 8505 of 2008, for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal, directed against the order dated 01.05.2008, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 5 (S/S) of 2002. Perused 2 the affidavit accompanying the application. The delay is sufficiently explained. The application is allowed. The delay is condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission of the Special Appeal and perused the impugned order dated 01.05.2008, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 5 (S/S) of 2002. 5. Brief facts of the case are that writ petitioner (present respondent) was a Meter Reader in Nagar Palika, Dehradun, whose services were later on transferred to the Garhwal Jal Sansthan, under the same terms and conditions in which he was working with his earlier employer i.e. Nagar Palika. It is admitted between the parties that under Retention and Retirement of Servants of Municipal Boards Regulations, 1965, the age of retirement of Class IV employees was 60 years. It is also not disputed that under G.O. No. os0 ek0 -2-315/nl&LFkk0 fu0&3&89, dated 13.02.1990, the employees were given option to get themselves retired at the age of 58 years and those who opted to get early retirement at the age of 58 years were entitled to be given one increment and a promotion. It is also not disputed between the parties that the writ petitioner did opt for retirement at the age of 58 years. The bone of contention between the parties is that whether the benefits under the G.O. were actually given or not. Writ petitioner (present respondent) on receiving the notice of retirement at 3 age of 58 years, filed a writ petition No. 5 (S/S) of 2002, challenging that he was not given benefits under the G.O. as such, he had a right to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 01.05.2008, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show us the copy of the order by which the promotion was given to the writ petitioner under the aforesaid G.O. dated 13.02.1990. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner pointed out that even the increment, which was given to the writ petitioner was relating to the selection grade and it has nothing to do with the increment, which was payable under the option. As such, the conditions mentioned in the G.O. were not fulfilled on the part of the employer. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, passed by learned Single Judge, in the above circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed summarily. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:13.02.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9