2025:UHC:6149-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/382/2013 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Ms. Divyanshi Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2013, seeking the following reliefs: “(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling upon and quashing the order dated 30.11.2012 and all consequential orders whereby by which the respondent No. 5 has been re-appointed on excadre post as Advisor Tax Government of Uttarakhand after attaining the age of superannuation with all the facilities of Additional Secretary Finance. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Additional Secretary Finance Government of Uttarakhand.” 3. Petitioner was serving as Assistant Commissioner in the Commercial Tax Department. He challenged an order dated 30.11.2012, issued by Secretary (Finance), whereby one Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava, retired Additional Secretary (Finance), was re-employed as Advisor to the State Government for a period of one year. 4. Petitioner contends that appointment of Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava as Advisor is bad and instead petitioner should have been appointed as Advisor. 5. Learned State Counsel points out that at the time of filing of writ petition, petitioner was 57 years of age; since 12 years have gone by therefore, petitioner would have attained 69 years of age, 2025:UHC:6149-DB therefore his claim for appointment as Advisor, is without any basis. He submits that Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava was also appointed for a term of one year, which has expired long back, therefore the reliefs as claimed do not survive. 6. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. In a petition filed in 2013, the reliefs as claimed cannot be granted at this belated stage. 7. In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.07.2025 Mahinder/