HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1559 (S/S) of 2004 Anwar Hussain, S/o Ameer Hassan ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & others ……Respondents Dated :- 17th September, 2009 Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.P, Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for respondent no.5. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27-8-2004 passed Respondent no.5 contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. (ii) issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the post on which he is working till 31-01-2007. (iii) issue any writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to retire the petitioner from service only after when he completes 60 years of age i.e. on 31-01-2007. (iv) issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) award cost of the petition of the petitioner. 2. In substance, the petitioner is challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 27.08.2004 passed by the respondent no.5 by which it has been directed that the petitioner would retire from service on 31-1-2005 after attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-8-2004 on the ground that the retirement age has been enhanced to 60 years from 58 years by the State Government vide G.O. dated 26-2-2003. The said G.O. is also applicable to the employees, who are working in the Co-operative Societies and the petitioner’s service is governed by the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti. Thus, the said G.O. is applicable in the case of petitioner. Now he had to retire after attaining the age of 60 years. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 383 (S/S) of 2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) in which the same controversy has been resolved. 4. The respondent no.5 has filed the counter affidavit stating therein that a similar controversy has been dealt with allowing the writ petition of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.950/2003 (S/S) and the said matter has been challenged in Special Appeal No.6/2004. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has stated at Bar that the said appeal has been dismissed; the controversy in this case is also similar; the order of the Single Bench has been confirmed in that case. Thus, the same controversy has been resolved by this Court. The judgment as referred above by learned counsel for the petitioner squarely covers the controversy arose in the instant petition, as such, the instant petition is disposed of in the same terms and conditions of the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ors. passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.383 (S/S) of 2003. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.08.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) is quashed and petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. No order as to costs. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 17.09.2009 Bhaskar