IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 65 of 2009 Man Bahadur ……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. . ………. Respondents. Mr. Monoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Date of decision: 12-04-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner is employed in the Office of the General Manager, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan (Kumaon Region). The conditions of service of the employees of the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan postulate the age of retirement on superannuation as 60 years. Prior to the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Karmachari Seva Niyamavali, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The 2004 Regulations’), the age of superannuation was 58 years. On the introduction of the aforesaid 2004 Regulations, an option was sought from the petitioner. In furtherance whereof, the petitioner exercised his option to the effect, that he desired to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in terms of the conditions stipulated, prior to the introduction of the 2004 Regulations. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years, in terms of his option on 31.08.2008 and was accordingly retired from service w.e.f. the aforesaid date. 2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks extension of age upto 60 years in terms of the Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan Karmachari Seva Niyamavali, 2004. This claim of the petitioner is wholly untenable in law. The petitioner had expressly opted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, as was prevalent prior to the introduction of the 2004 Regulations, and since the age of retirement is not a condition of service in terms of Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in T.P. George and 2 Others. etc. etc. versus State of Kerala and Other, JT 1992 (3) S.C. 88 and The Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore versus M.S. Jasra and Others, JT 1992 (2) S.C. 203, we are of the view, that the prayer made in the instant writ petition at the hands of the petitioner to enforce the age of retirement stipulated in the 2004 Regulations, is wholly misconceived. 3. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, the same was decided against the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, when he had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 91 of 2008, vide order dated 19.08.2008. 4. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has pressed his claim on the basis of a Government Order dated 26.03.2009, vide which the State Government had allowed those who had exercised their options to retire at the age of 58 years, to revise their options and thereby to continue upto the age of 60 years. We have considered the instant submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Unfortunately for the petitioner, he already stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2008, well before the Government Order dated 26.03.2009 was issued, and as such, the petitioner cannot seek retrospective benefit of the aforesaid executive order dated 26.03.2009, especially when all executive orders can operate only with prospective effect. 5. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 12.04.2010 12.04.2010 Amit