MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. NATIONAL DAIRY DEVLOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent National Dairy Development Board brought to our notice that the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement way back in the year 2006, which was accepted by the respondent as per Regulation 20 Clause (1) of the Officers (Appointment, Pay and Allowances) Regulations 1988. Counsel for the respondent places an office order dated 10th October 2006 in this regard for our perusal. It appears that the petitioner voluntarily retired as Senior Manager, NDDB and at the time of his voluntary retirement he was posted as Principal, RDTC at Jallandhar.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr Mukul Sinha, at the outset, made a statement that he is not pressing for any relief in terms of paragraph 19(A) and the first part of paragraph 19(B). He submitted that he is confining his case to the second part of relevant clause as contained in paragraph 19(B) of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner gave up the prayer so far as the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of Officers Appointment (Pay and Allowances) Regulations 1988 Section 40 and Section 48(2)(i) of National Dairy Development Act. At the same time, the petitioner also gave up his challenge so far as procedure of promotion followed by the respondent Board is concerned.