KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. HONBLE HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service as a Clerk/Ahlmad on the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala on 25.4.1980 and was posted as such in the Court of Sub -Judge -cum -Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur. In January, 1981 he was transferred to Chamba. On the bifurcation of Sessions Division, the petitioner was allotted to Chamba Sessions Division. He worked in various capacities and in due course, he was promoted as Senior Assistant. On such promotion, he worked as Civil Nazir/English Clerk in the office of respondent No. 2. In September, 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Dalhousie as Reader to Sub -Judge -cum -Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Having regard to certain domestic problems, the petitioner on 25.9.1998 submitted an application (Annexure P -l) to the respondent No. 2 praying for premature retirement from service and for being relieved from service with effect from 23.12.1998. Such request on having been considered by respondent No. 2 was accepted by him on 17.11.1998. The necessary orders in this regard are contained in Annexure P -4. The acceptance of his request for premature retirement was conveyed to the petitioner on 23.11.1998.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the petitioner on 19.11.1998 had submitted another application dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure P -2) to the respondent No. 2, through Sub -Judge -cum -Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie seeking to withdraw the request made by him earlier vide Annexure P -l for premature retirement from service. The request of the petitioner made vide Annexure P -2 withdrawing his earlier application for premature retirement was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 21.12.1998 vide Annexure P -5. The petitioner was thereafter relieved of his duties by respondent No. 2 with effect from 25.12.1998 (Afternoon) vide order dated 24.12.1998 as at Annexure P -6. According to the petitioner, though he was ordered to be relieved with effect from 25.12.1998, he was in fact relieved on 24.12.1998 (Afternoon) since it was Sunday on 25.12.1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 on the administrative side. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure P -8 by the respondent No. 2 that his appeal had been considered and rejected by respondent No. 1.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order and/or directions to the following effect: - (i) Orders contained in Annexure P -4 dated 17.11.1998, Annexure P -5 dated 1.12.1998, Annexure P -6 dated 24.12.1998 and Annexure P -8 dated 6.5.1999 may be quashed and set aside; and (ii) The respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post from which he was relieved with all consequential benefits and he may be treated to be in service with effect from 24.12.1998, that is, the date on which he was relieved from service.