HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 927 of 2025 Bahadur Singh Kunwar ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. H.M. Raturi and Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner in the instant case was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 04.08.1986. He served the Education Department for decades and superannuated on 31.01.2024. The State of Uttarakhand has recognized his services by conferring the Shailesh Matiyani State Education Award (“the Award”). One of the benefits of the award is that two years extension of service is given to the awardee post retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner was also given two years extension. He took charge post retirement on 31.01.2024 at Government Upper Secondary School Baisani, Kapkot, Bageshwar. He was subsequently attached to the Government Upper Secondary School Dhungatoli, Dharchula, Pithoragarh. Again, he was reverted to original school on 17.02.2025. Thereafter, some dispute arose and finally, the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 of the respondent no.4/Additional Director, Secondary Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital, his two years extension was restricted up to 31.05.2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order, it is impugned. The petitioner also claims salary for the period, he has worked in the school. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a decorated teacher. He was given the award in recognition to his services. He took charge post retirement on 31.01.2024, but some false complaints were allegedly made against him. He was attached to some other school. Again he was brought back to Government Upper Secondary School Baisani, Kapkot, Bageshwar. But, he was never ever permitted to join there. Based on some complaints, the respondents constituted a Three Member Committee. The Three Member Committee never served any notice on the petitioner. The petitioner was never given copy of any complaint made against him. No show cause notice was served on him. He was not made aware as to what is happening in the inquiry committee. One day, he was telephonically called to attend the inquiry committee, where he was made to sign the document without letting him know as to what is the matter pending against him. Simply based on the recommendation of the inquiry committee, his extension of two years service has been restricted up till 31.05.2025, which is bad in the eye of law. The petitioner has been condemned unheard. It is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner was not good. He manipulated in the office records. He absented himself from the school. There were various complaints of the local people. The complaints were made to the political executives as well as to the administration. Thereafter, Three Members Committee was constituted and the extension of the services of the petitioner was restricted up to 31.05.2025. 3 5. The Court wanted to know from learned State counsel as to whether, the petitioner was ever given an opportunity of being heard against such serious allegations which are alleged against him like manipulation of records etc.? The answer is in negative. 6. The petitioner has served for 38 years in the Education Department when he retired. Before his retirement, he was given an award in recognition to his excellent services. Which means in the estimation of the respondents/State, the petitioner was an efficient and recognized educationalist. He was awarded with two years of extension of service post retirement, which he joined on 31.01.2024, which means his term could have concluded sometimes in the month of January, 2026. But suddenly, the period of extension has been restricted up to 31.05.2025. The condition of the awards are governed by Government Order dated 29.08.2005, which is filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit. It definitely requires that the teachers should be physically and mentally fit and his work and conduct as a teacher during service tenure should be satisfactory. Initially, when the petitioner was given extension or the award, he met all those conditions. 8. This Court may not be required to examine to the allegations that have been levelled against the petitioner. The impugned order runs in three pages. It records serious allegations against the petitioner in terms of manipulating the official records, indiscipline etc. But, the respondents/State has not given even a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was not served with a copy of any complaint which was filed against him. The inquiry committee did not consider it proper to hear him or to provide him with the copies of the complaints against him or any material which was proposed to be read against him. 9. It is categorically stated by the petitioner in para 7 of his rejoinder affidavit that one day he was called by the inquiry committee 4 telephonically. But, he was not told anything about the allegations that were against him and any complaints etc. and simply two years extension was restricted upto 31.05.2025. It is definitely violation of the principles of natural justice. This order may not be upheld. Accordingly, it deserves to be set aside and the writ petition allowed. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 30.05.2025 is set aside. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.08.2025 Jitendra