HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1101 of 2025 (S/S) Kumesh ….....Petitioner Versus Nagar Palika Parishad and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the communication dated 17.10.2020 of the respondent no.2, The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parashad, Bhimtal, District Nainital (“The Executive Officer”), by which the petitioner was informed that as per his date of birth, he would superannuate on 31.12.2020. The challenge is also made to the order dated 01.03.2021, of the the Executive Officer, by which a representation of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged a report of the Executive Officer, given to the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, which details that after completion of 60 years of age, the petitioner has been superannuated. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, he was engaged as Environment Friend by the respondents in the year 2007. By the order dated 31.12.2016, his services were regularized. He submitted his fitness certificate dated 01.08.2018, in which his age is recorded as 51 years. The petitioner was sent for medical examination for determining his age and the medical board, on 11.08.2020, determined the age of the petitioner as 65 years, though the petitioner 2 had obtained the birth certificate, which reflects his date of birth as 01.01.1967. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 01.01.1967; he could not have been retired in the year 2020. Therefore, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is difference in the age of the petitioner in all the official documents; the petitioner has obtained his date of birth certificate in the year 2019, which records his date of birth as 01.01.1960. Therefore, the petitioner cannot retire in the year 2020. It is submitted that the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that at the time of regularization, the petitioner submitted a medical fitness certificate on 20.12.2016, in which his age was recorded as 56 years. Therefore, in the year 2020, he had completed the age of 60 years and he was superannuated. 7. In the instant matter, the petitioner had earlier filed a petition, i.e. WPSS No.1903 of 2020, Kumesh Balmiki Vs. Chairman Nagar Panchayat, Bhimtal, which was decided by this Court on 31.12.2020 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 01.03.2021, the representation has been decided. The following facts are not disputed:- (i) The services of the petitioner was regularised on 20.12.2016. On that date, in the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner, his age was recorded as 56 years. (ii) The petitioner had also filed a fitness certificate dated 01.08.2018, in which his age is recorded as 51 years. (iii) Interestingly, the Medical Board of B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Nainital, conducted medical 3 examination of the petitioner so as to determine his age on 11.08.2020, in which his age is recorded as 65 years. (iv) The petitioner has also filed a birth certificate issued from an authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was issued on 01.12.2019, and in it, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 01.01.1967. 8. It is not disputed that in the year 2016, when the services of the petitioner was regularized, he himself submitted a medical certificate revealing his age as 56 years. This is the first document with regard to the age, which the petitioner had submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained other documents, including the date of birth certificate, which was obtained on 01.12.2019. It is more than after 4 decades of his birth, he could get the certificate, but prior to it, according to the petitioner himself, on 11.08.2020, his medical examination was conducted and the medical board has determined his age as 65 years. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the medical examination report, the age may vary 2 year either side. 10. This proposition is not in dispute. Even if it is taken for the benefit of the petitioner, on 11.08.2020, on lower side, the age of the petitioner would be 63 years. Even then, he has completed 60 years of age. This age determination by the medical board has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 11. In its report dated 06.02.2024, the Executive Officer has given in detail about these facts and concluded that the petitioner has rightly been superannuated on 31.12.2020. 4 12. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 13. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 02.07.2025 Ravi Bisht