2026:UHC:4201-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No.300 of 2026 May 27, 2026 Prof. (Dr.) Dinesh Chandra Ramola ----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shubhang Dobhal and Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Sanskrit University/respondent nos.3 and 4 Ms. Anjlai Bhargava, learned counsel for UGC/respondent no.5 JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding that the statute no.16.24 (1) and 16.26 of the regulations of the Respondent Sanskrit University is arbitrary as the age of retirement is 62 years which is in contravention to the UGC Regulations which provide age of retirement 65 years for academic staff. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to serve in the respondent Sanskrit University as 1 2026:UHC:4201-DB a regular faculty position beyond 62 years upto the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits including salary.” 3. By Office memorandum dated 13.01.2026 issued by Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Haridwar, where the petitioner was serving as a Professor, he was given session benefit, and though he was to retire on 13.01.2026, he has been permitted to work till 30.06.2026. Under the First Statute of the University, the age of superannuation is 62 years. The petitioner claims that his age of superannuation should be 65 years and in support of the submission, he places reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.12.2011 in Writ Petition No.52 of 2010 (S/B) “Pant University Teachers Association, Pant Nagar vs. Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the general mandamus issued in the said case, the University has failed to amend its statutes and accordingly, reliefs, as stated above, have been prayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation to the University for extending the age of superannuation and prays that a direction be issued to the University to consider and decide the said representation. 2 2026:UHC:4201-DB 5. Shri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the University has no objection to the said prayer. 6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no.4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2026 by speaking order within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 27.05.2026 Rajni 3