LPA No.703 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.703 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants. Versus Dr. Jagpal Singh Dalal ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing retirement of the respondent – writ petitioner at the age of 58 years and directing that he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years. 2. Case of the respondent is that he joined government service as Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine after selection by Punjab Public Service Commission on 14.5.1982 and was promoted as Professor on 21.5.1987. By notification dated 24.4.2007, age of retirement was enhanced to 60 years. The respondent was later appointed as Principal of Government LPA No.703 of 2009 2 Medical College. He was also given charge of Director, Research and Medical Education against leave vacancy on 7.6.2007. On reaching the age of 58 years, he was retired on 28.11.2008. 3. Grievance in the writ petition was that since the respondent had been appointed as Professor on substantive post, his age of retirement was 60 years as per notification dated 24.4.2007. Stand of the appellants was that since respondent had been appointed as Director, his age of retirement had to be taken as 58 years only. 4. Learned Single Judge held that appointment of the respondent as Director was only additional charge on temporary basis and the respondent continued in the substantive appointment as Professor in which case, age of retirement was 60 years. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. It has not been disputed that respondent continued on the substantive post of Professor with additional charge of Director in which case no fault can be found with the finding that his retirement age has to be taken 60 years. This being the situation, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 11.01.2010 sk.