COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 5/2002 Nand Kishor Dobhal …….Petitioner Versus Garhwal Jal Sansthan Dehradun, Through its General Manager & Other ……Respondents Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 1st May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till the age of 60 years and to pay him all the benefits accordingly. 2. Petitioner was appointed on 29.12.1971 as Meter Reader in Nagar Palika, Dehradun and lateron, his services were confirmed on the said post. Consequent upon coming into force the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the office of respondents w.e.f. 2.10.1975. In pursuance of the Government Order dated 13.2.1990, the petitioner opted for his retirement at the age of 58 years. As per the said Government Order an employee who opts for his retirement on completion of 58 years, he shall be given the benefit of one increment and promotion as per the provision of 4th Pay Commission. But the 2 petitioner was not given the said benefit. The respondents issued a retirement notice to the petitioner by notifying the date of retirement as 31.1.2002 i.e. after completion of 58 years. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. This Court vide interim order dated 10.1.2002 directed the respondents that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till further orders. The said stay order was vacated by the order dated 3.12.2002. But even thereafter the petitioner continued to work in the office of the respondents for some period which is evident from the certificate contained in Annexure 2 and copies of the attendance register, Annexure 2, 4 and 5 to the supplementary affidavit. It is not disputed that in usual course the petitioner would have retired at the age of 60 years. Petitioner had tendered his conditional option for opting the age of retirement as 58 years. But the benefits of the Government Order dated 13.2.1990 were not extended to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the option of the petitioner has become ineffective. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be treated to have retired at the age of 60 years and he shall be given all other consequential benefits accordingly as are being given to other similarly situated employees of the department. Respondents are further directed to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period he has actually worked in the department after 31.1.2002 in terms of the interim order dated 10.1.2002. However, if any extra payment has been 3 made to the petitioner at the time of notice of retirement, the same shall be adjusted in the next payment. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 1.5.2008 Prabodh