2025:UHC:11324-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 551 of 2025 17th December, 2025 Satish Chand ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….…Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Mansi Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6/University. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Oral: Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned order no. PMA/SAO/F-30/9275 dated 20.02.2025 (annexure no.1) passed by respondent no. 5 i.e. Chief Personnel Officer/Additional Chief Personnel Officer, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Udham Singh Nagar, qua the petitioner, by which the petitioner has been shown, going to be retired on 28.02.2026. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as falling under ‘classroom teaching’ in terms of the Government order dated 20.09.2013 and/or accordingly provide that the age of the petitioner as 65 years. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent 1 2025:UHC:11324-DB no. 5 to decide the representation dated 28.11.2025 (annexure no. 12) of the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s retirement is 65 years, but, the respondent- department has issued notification that petitioner would retire at the age of 60. She would further submit that identical issue has already been decided by this Court in multiple litigations. She referred to the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court in WPSB No. 391 of 2025, Dr. Mahendra Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-University and other respondents admit that the identical issue has already been decided by this Court in WPSB No. 391 of 2025, Dr. Mahendra Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation to the Competent Authority in the University within a week and the Competent Authority was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner a week thereafter. 5. Since, the identical issue has already been decided by this Court in WPSB No. 391 of 2025, Dr. Mahendra Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others and the facts involved in the instant case being similar, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent no. 5 in the 2 2025:UHC:11324-DB University. In case, such representation is made within 48 hours, the respondent no. 5 shall take decision thereupon within two weeks from the date of its receipt. ( Alok Mahr a, J.) ( Ravindr a Mait h ani, J.) 17.12.2025 Ujjwal 3