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.