IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 234 of 2009 Dr. A.P. Pandey ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..……Respondents. None for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This case was listed for the first time on 29.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the first date of hearing sought an adjournment. After 29.10.2009, the case was listed for hearing on 5.11.2009. On 5.11.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a week’s time to file a supplementary affidavit. Despite the passage of four months since then, supplementary affidavit has not been filed. Today, the case has been called out several times since morning. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition. The same reveal that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation as far back on 30.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the D.P.C. proceedings conducted prior to his attaining the age of superannuation. Even after the petitioner’s superannuation, more than three years have passed. The instant writ petition claiming relief in respect of the Departmental Promotion Committee prior to his superannuation is highly belated. The instant writ 2 petition is accordingly dismissed for reasons of delay and latches as also in default. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 5.3.2010 Avneet