news details |
|
|
| HC orders reinstatement of Girdawar retired in public interest | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, June 8: The high court today ordered the government to reinstate a Girdawar who was pre-maturely retired in 2004. A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Jammu Wing comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Sunil Hali issued the order in an appeal filed by one Des Raj.
The appellant Des Raj was working as Girdawar and vide order No 1263-GAD of 2004 dated September 20, 2004, he was pre-maturely retired from service with effect from September 21, 2004. The order of retirement of appellant was passed in public interest.
Aggrieved by the order, the appellant challenged the same before the High Court. A single bench allowed the petition on February 5, 2009 with a direction to respondent to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the rules on the basis of service record of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay.
Justice Sunil Hali wrote the judgement for the Division Bench after hearing Advocate RS Thakur for the appellant whereas Additional Advocate General AH Qazi appeared for the state. The court observed that the direction of the Single Judge to reconsider the matter a fresh was uncalled for in the present circumstances. Once the single judge had expressed his opinion that there was no material on the basis of which the appellant could be retired from service pre-maturely, the only direction which was required to be issued under the said circumstances was to set-aside the order of retirement.
The court further observed that the order of pre-mature retirement was passed in public interest and intended to weed out the dead-wood from the administration. It is passed keeping in view the over all assessment of service profile and reputation of the official.
The limited judicial intervention is only to the extent of examining the material on the basis of which opinion has been framed by the competent authority. Once the writ court found that there was no material on the basis of which the appellant/ petitioner could be retired pre-maturely, the order passed in this regard by the respondent state was required to be quashed which has not been done by the Single Judge. No direction could be issued by the Writ Court to reconsider the matter on the basis of service record. Such a direction regarding consideration of the matter by the respondent authorities could not have been issued by the writ court and it was not dealing with an issue where some irregularity was committed in the matter of procedure or application of law. With these observations Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by Des Raj and set-aside the order of single judge. Division Bench directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date he was retired pre-maturely. The appellant/ petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits from the said date, DB ordered. -JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
