2026:UHC:2929 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1607/2024 With WPSS/768/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal and Mr. Bhupendra Bora, Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of Writ Petition (SS) No. 1607 of 2024, alone are being considered and discussed. 2. Petitioner served as Senior Instructor in Nehru Institute of Mountaineering at Uttarkashi, who retired from service at the age of 48 years on 31.07.2024. Principal of the Institute recommended his case for extension of service, as per Rule 25(b) of the applicable service rules to the Ministry of Defence, which was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2024. 3. While turning down the proposal for extension of service of petitioner, Joint Director D(HMI), directed the Principal, Nehru Institute 2026:UHC:2929 of Mountaineering, Uttarkashi to explore the possibility of employing personnel afresh either on contract or appoint the petitioner as consultant at wages appropriate to his experience and prevailing market rate. 4. Petitioner contends that same officer, namely, Niraj Kumar Pathak passed an order on behalf of Government of India in respect of two instructors, who were about to retire from service from Himalayan Mountaineering Institute, Darjeeling and decided that extension can be given to them, therefore, denial of approval for extension of service to the petitioner, who also served as senior instructor in Nehru Institute of Mountaineering, Uttarkashi cannot be justified. 5. It is contended that Union of India should treat similarly situate persons similarly and there cannot be any discrimination based only on the Institute where an employee is serving. 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since the competent authority has granted approval for extension of service to Chief Instructor and Senior Instructor in Himalayan Mountaineering Institute, Darjeeling, denial of similar treatment to the petitioner appears to be unjustified, especially when there is no cogent reason forthcoming for justifying denial of approval to the case of 2026:UHC:2929 petitioner. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by Joint Director, D(HMI) is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 8. The competent authority i.e. Joint Director is directed to revisit the issue and pass appropriate order, as per law, within eight weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.04.2026 Mahinder/