SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSB 634/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. K.P. Upadhaya, Senior Advocate, for the respondent no. 2 and 3. (2) According to petitioner, he was appointed as Receptionist on daily wages in Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (GMVN) w.e.f. 10.5.1981 and his services were subsequently regularised as Receptionist w.e.f. 16.5.1988. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2018, whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. He has also challenged the notice dated 13.6.2018, issued by the competent authority, whereby petitioner was informed that he will stand retired from service w.e.f. 12.9.2018. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that order of compulsory retirement, passed against the petitioner, is without any reason or justification, as petitioner’s work and conduct was found to be satisfactory all through. (4) Learned Senior Counsel for the GMVN has drawn attention of this Court to a confidential letter, allegedly written by petitioner to Her Excellency, the Governor on 14.9.2018. Based on such letter, learned Senior Counsel for the GMVN submits that petitioner was in the habit of writing letters to higher authorities by claiming himself to be Deputy General Manager, a post which he never held even on officiating basis. He further submits that the said letter discloses petitioner’s state of mind, as he was having misconception about his abilities and he has also made serious allegations against his superior authorities. He further submits that a committee was constituted to assess the service record of 12 employees of GMVN including the petitioner and the said committee, after evaluating the service record of petitioner, recommended for his compulsory retirement. The adverse material, available in the service record of petitioner, has been discussed in para 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the counter affidavit. (5) We have gone through the adverse material on record against the petitioner. Based on such material, the decision taken on the recommendation of the committee to compulsorily retire him cannot be faulted. As per the rules applicable in GMVN, compulsory retirement is not a measure of penalty and any employee, who has completed 50 years of age or 25 years of service, can be compulsorily retired upon assessment of his service record. (6) Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing for the GMVN, submits that compulsory retirement does not result in forfeiture of pension or any other retiral benefits. (7) For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any scope for interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.05.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.17 11:40:58 +05'30'