RAJ NATH BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1988-2-16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 11,1988

Raj Nath Bhat Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)PETITIONER seeks a writ of mandamus and directions for payment of pension and gratuity in accordance with the rules applicable to him and for further relief of giving him the benefit of two years service and also for issuance of a direction for making payment to him of the balance amount due to him on account of petition and gratuity.
(2.)THE fasts stated by the petitioner in his writ petition lier in brief compass:. Petitioner was appointed to the Jammu and Kashmir Government service on 17 -7 -1953. He had been in continuous service under the State upto 24 -8 -1979. Petitioner was retired from Government service from 24 -8 -1979 vide Govt. order No.202 -ME of 1979 dated 20 -6 -1979 which is contained in Annexure -I to the petition. Petitioner states that he had given notice to the state Govt. on 9 -5 -1979 to give him the benefit of two yci|f addition to his qualifying service to which he was entitled to under Art.250 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations read with other relevant SROs%. After his retirement payment of his pension, gratuity and leave salary was withheld and the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking mandamus for the release of his dues. The said writ petition was numbered as wit petition No.387/1980 and decided on 2 -4 -1981. As a result of this litigation petitioner was paid certain amount. The respondents are said to have fixed the pension and gratuity of the petitioner incorrectly and he is put to financial loss. This is recurripg and some amount on account of gratuity also is withheld to him.
(3.)PETITIONER is said to have retired voluntarily under Art. 230 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations. The said order laid down that he was entitled to pension and to leave as admissible under rules. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to receive pension at a higher rate and is entitled to the benefit of two years service under rules and the respondents are obliged to respect the petitioners right to the said benefits, otherwise petitioners damental rights are said to get abridged. Petitioners pension is not fixed by the respdts. in accordance with the rules. Therefore, mandamus and directions sought.
After the admission of the writ petition, this court vide ite dated 2 -4 -1987 passed an per -emptory order giving four months time to the respondents to file the counter failing which the right to file the counter was to be closed. Despite the said order counter was not filed and in terms of the directions contained in the said order, respondents have lost the right to file the counter. As a result of this, this petition is heard without counter. I have heard learned counsel for the paries and have considered the relevant rules applicable to the facts of this case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.