IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8255 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.11.2010 Fateh Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Prima facie, there is no connection between the suspension order or trial of the petitioner with the order of his compulsory retirement, Annexure P-3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, says that except for this, there is no other material, which could have led to the order of compulsory retirement. There is no averment made in the petition if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of ACR for being retained beyond 55 years of age. Counsel prays for time to place the same on record. In my view, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, in case, he wants to challenge his compulsory retirement on that basis. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition by making wholesome challenge by making reference to the nature of reports earned by the petitioner, in case, he has any grievance against the order of retirement. November 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE