WPSS/344/2022 of MANOJ KUMAR Vs COMMISSIONER GARHWAL DIVISION PAURI GARHWAL

|**SL.**<br>**No**|**Date**|**Office Notes, reports,**<br>**orders or proceedings**<br>**or directions and**<br>**Registrar’s order with**<br>**Signatures**|**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|
||||WPSS No.344 of 2022<br>**Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.**<br>Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the<br>petitioner.<br>Mr. Pradeep Hariya, Addl. C.S.C. for the<br>State of Uttarakhand.<br>The petitioner who was serving with the<br>respondents, his services have been compulsorily<br>retired in pursuance to the order which has been<br>passed by respondent no.2 on 15.02.2020. The said<br>order of compulsory retirement has been passed on<br>the basis of the report submitted by the Screening<br>Committee on 31.02.2020.<br>Being aggrieved against the order of<br>imposition of compulsory retirement, the petitioner<br>preferred representation before the District<br>Magistrate. The same has been rejected on<br>14.05.2020. The petitioner in para 21 of the writ<br>petition had submitted that being aggrieved against<br>the order passed by the District Magistrate, he had<br>preferred appeal which is presently pending<br>consideration and no decision has been taken as<br>such on the same by the Commissioner.<br>Without expressing any opinion on the merits<br>of the matter and particularly the aspect pertaining<br>to the maintainability of an appeal as against the<br>order of compulsory retirement, the Commissioner<br>is requested to decide, the so called appeal preferred<br>by the petitioner, within period of two months<br>from the date of presentation of his judgment<br>subject to the condition that the appeal itself was<br>tenable under law by an appellate provision.<br>Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ<br>petition stands disposed of.<br> <br> **(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)**<br> 04.03.2022<br>Arti|