HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ab Ahad Darzi
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner or his counsel is not appearing in the case after July 1989. The petition has been fifed as far back as in January 1982. No substantial proceedings have been taken in the matter. Respondents have
not also appeared it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in
this case as is sufficiently displayed by his post litigative conduct,
atleast after July 1989 of not following the case and failure to appear
and prosecute the case. A Co -ordinate bench of this Court vide order
dated: 26.12.96, has observed that the matter is of public interest,
therefore, notwithstanding absence of parties matter will be heard.
(2.) A close examination of the matter reveals that the petitioner is seeking higher amount of compensation for his alleged dismissal from
service or imprisonment in the wake of political events that took place
on August 12,1953 leading to replacement of the then Government To atone
the wrong done to the petitioner he has been paid compensation of Rs.
10,000/ -. He is seeking increase of this compensation amount He made a representation to the Government and the Secretary to Government Genera!
Department vide letter No. GD(Adm) 38/76 -P.V,dated:12.9.1981 (annexure -A)
informed him that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -sanctroned
byway of full and final settlement of his claim cannot be increased, in
view of the consent and agreement of the petitioner to receive this
amount as complete and total satisfaction of his claimed compensation.
The personal affidavit of the petitioner thereto is placed on record with
the Administrative Department On the basis of the consensus and agreement
between the Govt. and the petitioner the case has not been reviewed and
compensation not increased In the petition petitioner submits that as an
amount of Rs. 25, 000/ - was paid as compensation to one Shri G. M. Shah,
Retired Controller Supplies and Prices, therefore, he should be also paid
this very amount. Without placing on record the document and material
indicating identity and similarity of facts and circumstances between the
two cases, mere contention of claiming higher compensation on this ground
cannot get judicial approval. The circumstances and facts to show any
arbitrariness, unfairness or irrationality in approach in awarding the
compensation are wholly missing in this case Compensation at the relevant
time was granted by the government to various alleged political sufferers
in 1975 and soon thereafter change in Govt. and the then political
environment It was granted pursuant to a policy decision of the then
Cabinite, Committee/Group comprising of secretaries to Govt. general
administration, Finance and Home Department was constituted in July 75 to
examine the cases, grievances and representations of said sufferers
removed from service in 1953 on political considerations This
Group/Committee was to recommend and submit to cabinite proposal of each
case for relief. The Committee examined the cases, including that of
petitioner and came up with its recommendation and proposal as under: -
"Pay which an ex -employee was in receipt of at the time of his discharge/ dismissal plus 25% increase allowed in Iieu of other benefits like increment/ promotion etc. which he might have earned from time to time, multiplied by the number of years for which he remained out of service. The total emoluments thus worked out be multiplied by 1/2 and subject to the following cealings: - Pay range inclusive of weightage proposed in the adhoc formula. upto Rs. 200/ - Rs. 201/ - to 300/ - Rs.301/ - to 500/ - Rs. 500/ - and above Maximum proposed compensation Rs. 10,000/ - Rs. 15,000/ - Rs. 20,000/ - Rs. 25,000/ - In case of persons who would have superannuated in service the compensation was calculated upto that date.
(3.) THE petitioners case was decided on the touch stone of this formula and in terms of above norms supplemented by the unconditional
consent and unfettered agreement of the petitioner to receive the amount
by way of whole final settlement of the compensation claim The cases of
others removed from service in 1953 on political considerations have been
dealt with and determined alike in terms of above norms It is not case of
dealing with like circumstanced persons unequally or treating equally
unequally circumstanced persons Thus viewed the action(s) taken by State
and its officials In this case conform to set standard and norm which is
not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant, in result the impugned order
cannot be said to be violative of equality clause as contained in article
14 of the Constitution.
The subject matter is over 23 years old. Case is not being followed for last number of years. One individual is seeking higher
amount of compensation Issues involved and beyond legal contours in
political arena. Judicial Forumâ„¢ is not and cannot be a place to
examine political issues and settle political scores. Governments policy
decision cannot be questioned in Court even if placed before court in
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.