Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 21: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today dismissed an LPA, observing that 'if opportunity of hearing is extended, the result cannot be changed; so conducting enquiry is an empty formality'.
The court directive came in a LPA filed by one Chaman Lal Ganjoo, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to allow him to remain in service till May 31, 2006 on the basis of the date of birth (DoB) recorded in his matriculation certificate, ie May 16, 1948 and allow him to draw all consequential benefits. He also sought a direction to respondents not to make any recoveries from the appellant with effect from May 1998, the date on which the appellant was treated to have retired from service.
He submitted that he appeared in matriculation examination from University of Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 under Roll No 8503. He was appointed as a junior assistant (JA) in the revenue department in 1973. He later qualified the combined services competitive examination and was appointed as Accounts Officer in the finance department on January 23, 1993 on substantive basis. He stated that at the time of his appointment as JA, he had submitted his matriculation certificate mentioning DoB as May 16, 1948 which was recorded in his service book.
He said the deputy director (central) accounts and treasuries department on July 28, 2003 requested him to furnish his service book in original along with the matriculation certificate as he had received some complaint against him regarding his DoB. Again on September 17, 2003, he was directed to submit his original service book and matriculation certificate, following which he submitted their photocopies. On September 24, 2004, respondent No 3 addressed a communication to the district treasury officer, Udhampur, and directed him that Ganjoo's salary for July and August 2003 be released and the salary from September 2003 onwards should not be released unless the original service book and matriculation certificate were produced. The government then issued order No 94-F on April 6, 2004 which said he was deemed to have retired from service with effect from May 1998. It is the contention of the appellant that the said order was not communicated, however, another person assumed the charge of Chief Accounts Officer, District Fund Office, Udhampur, on April 6, 2004. (JNF): |
