2025:UHC:7118-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No. 323 of 2015 13 August, 2025 Anil Kumar Aggarwal --Petitioner Versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) & another --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) JUDGMENT This writ petition was filed in 2015 seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ or direction quashing the impugned office order dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), particularly component (ix) so far it relates to promotion to E-6 level, declaring it to be violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of ONGC Recruitment and Promotion Regulation Act, 1980. b) Issue a writ or direction quashing the impugned order dated 14.12.2014 passed by respondent no.1 on representation/appeal preferred by the petitioner. c) Issue a writ or direction quashing the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 on the representation/appeal preferred by the petitioner. d) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of 1 2025:UHC:7118-DB mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for promotion to E-6 level w.e.f. 01.01.2014. e) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all consequential benefits, allowances, salary etc., to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2014.” 2. At the time of filing of writ petition, petitioner was serving as Chief Manager (Human Resource) in E-5 level, in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. The next promotional post available to petitioner was to E-6 level; petitioner was considered for promotion, however, promotion was denied to him on the ground that he could not secure the minimum cut off marks, necessary for selection. 3. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the rejection order dated 23.03.2015. He has also challenged the office order dated 14.11.2024, whereby criteria for promotion was fixed. 4. At the time of filing of writ petition, petitioner was 58 years of age. Now ten years have gone by since filing of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. After superannuation, the relief as claimed, cannot be granted. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.08.2025 Navin 2 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21 CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.14 10:26:50 +05'30'