Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 5: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today ruled that the decision of not giving extension to judicial officer P N Razdan by then Full Court was taken in view of certain entries made in his ACRs. The court directive came in a petition filed by Razdan, challenging his retirement at the age of 58. The bench said his merit, utility and all other aspects were assessed right from the date of his entry into service and it was noticed that from January 1 to December 31, 1995, his ACRs were recorded as 'average' against the column of 'disposal of old cases, progress and disposal of execution applications and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments'. From January 1 to December 31, 1996, his ACRs were recorded as 'satisfactory' for disposal of old cases and from September to December 31, 1997, it was recorded in his ACRs that 'disposal needs improvement'. In the column of other remarks, if any, it was recorded that 'there is a scope for improvement'. In ACRs for 2000, he was recorded as 'average' against the column of 'knowledge of law, efficiency about judicial work, administrative capability, general reputation and overall assessment', the bench added.
The bench said all these entries in his ACRs were taken into consideration by the committee headed by then J&K High Court Chief Justice and it was resolved not to recommend extension of service, which was approved by Full Court. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition filed in 2007 was not maintainable because the petitioner had completed the age of 60 years in June 2006. Since he retired in June 2004, the restoration of his service got expired in June 2006 when he attained the age of 60. The bench observed that insofar as contention of counsel for the respondent was concerned, the writ could not be entertained on that ground also. The petitioner had also not explained the delay for filing the writ petition, three years after his retirement, the bench said and added, "Hence the petition is hit by delay and laches."
With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition. - (JNF) |
