SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1771

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DR BIRENDRA DEO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSB 287 / 2026



##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:3964-DB

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (S/B) No.287 of 2026

May 21, 2026

Dr. Birendra Deo Singh ----Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner

Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh, learned

Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1

Mr. C.S. Rawat and Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned counsel respondent nos.2 to

6/University

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.

1. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by Office Order

dated 07.05.2026, whereby it has been intimated that the

petitioner would retire on 31.05.2026, has filed the

present writ petition.

2. The initial appointment of the petitioner, vide

order dated 11.07.1999, was as a Subject Matter

Specialist (Agronomy). In due course of time, he was

granted various promotions and presently he is holding

the designation of Professor and is posted in the

Directorate of Extension Education.

1

##PAGE2##

2026:UHC:3964-DB

3. The case of the petitioner is that, by order dated

20.04.2015, age of superannuation of the teaching staff in

the University was increased from 60 to 65 years. The

further case of the petitioner is that he has all through

been treated as a teaching staff and promotion on the

post of Professor was granted to him because he was

treated as member of a teaching staff. However, by

impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the State

Government, it has been held that the employees other

than teachers, would retire at the age of 60 years.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, in identical facts and circumstances, in

case of Dr. Vinod Kumar, who was initially appointed as

Senior Statistician/Senior Research Officer, Statistics

(General Budge), the University sought to retire him at

the age of 60 years treating him to be member of non-

teaching staff. It was subjected to challenge by him by

way of Writ Petition (S/B) No.350/2023 and the said writ

petition was allowed by a Coordinate Bench by judgment

dated 14.03.2024. The State Government has already

complied with the said judgment and has permitted Dr.

Vinod Kumar to continue in service treating his age of

superannuation as 65 years. It is submitted that following

2

##PAGE3##

2026:UHC:3964-DB

the said judgment, another writ petition bearing no. WPSB

No.275/2024 “Ramji Maurya vs. State of Uttarakhand &

Others”, filed by Ramji Maurya, who was also initially

appointed as Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy) in the

Directorate of Extension Education, was disposed of by

another Coordinate Bench vide order dated 10.12.2025, in

terms of order and judgment in the case of Dr. Vinod

Kumar and in the said case also the order of this Court

has been complied with.

5. Shri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for

the University does not dispute the above factual position.

He admits that the petitioners of the aforesaid cases have

been permitted to continue in service treating their age of

superannuation as 65 years. He further admits that the

University has not challenged the aforesaid orders.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

State, on the other hand, submits that the State

Government has challenged the judgment of Coordinate

Bench in the case of Dr. Vinod Kumar (supra) before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP is pending. He,

however, does not dispute that there is no interim order in

the said case and the order of the Coordinate Bench in the

3

##PAGE4##

2026:UHC:3964-DB

case of Dr. Vinod Kumar (supra) as well as in the case of

Ramji Maurya (supra) have been duly complied with.

7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual

position, we dispose of the present writ petition also in

terms of the judgment and order dated 14.03.2024

passed in WPSB No.350/2023 “Dr. Vinod Kumar vs.

Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers

Welfare, Government of Uttarak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top