HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 750 of 2009 (S/S) Munesh Devi …. Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 11th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Restoration Application No. 833 of 2009 Delay Condonation Application No. 9533 of 2009 The applicant/petitioner has moved restoration application along with delay condonation application. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanied by the delay condonation application appear to be bona fide. Delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The reasons assigned in the accompanying affidavit to the restoration application appear to be just and proper. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 21.8.2009 passed by this Court is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P. No. 750 of 2009 (S/S) Heard Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2 The petitioner was given appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 in the year 2000, as her husband who was working as a Store-mate died in harness. At the time of giving her appointment, since the petitioner was illiterate, medical examination was done and as per the Chief Medical Officer the age of the petitioner was determined as 50 years in the year 2000. The petitioner now is on the verge of retirement as the age of retirement is 60 years. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the allegations that at the time the petitioner had got appointment her age was not 50 years but much less and therefore, she should be medically examined again and her retirement may be made on the basis of the correct age after medical examination. The petitioner has made the following prayers : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recalculate the age of the petitioner after appointing a penal of doctors failing which the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 not to retire the petitioner on the basis of wrong age shown in the C.M.O. certificate and further direct to retire the petitioner only on the basis of the correct age after examining. (iii) Pass any other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner.” 3 It is an admitted case that at the time of her initial appointment the petitioner was medically examined and the medical examination was done by the Chief Medical Officer. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the determination of her age then she could have challenge the correctness of such determination of age at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2000. This is not the time when this matter can be agitated, particularly when the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. There is also no anomaly in the determination of age which was done by the competent authorities. Earlier, vide its order dated 7.11.2009 this Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit showing the age of her husband at the time of his death. Although no such affidavit has been filed, the documents which have been filed by the petitioner show that at the time of his death the petitioner’s husband was about 51 years of age meaning thereby he was older than the present petitioner. Although this fact may not in itself be a sufficient evidence as regarding the age of the present petitioner, it definitely throws some light as to the age of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there was definitely no serious lapse or miscalculation in determining the age of the petitioner at the relevant time. Writ petition has no merit and, therefore, is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.11.2009 Avneet