SATISH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein has assailed the impugned order dated 18th July, 2001 and 22nd September, 2001 (Annexures: PG and PH) respectively. The Petitioner who was working as Process Server in the Court of Sub Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, was transferred and appointed as Daftri in the office of Senior Sub Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmshala vide office order dated 30th September, 1993 (Annexure: PA). He was further promoted as Clerk and subsequently as Copyist in the same Court.

(2.) On 26th March, 2001, the Petitioner tendered his resignation categorically stating that due to some domestic problem it had become difficult for him to continue in service. A request was made by the Petitioner that his letter of resignation may be treated as three months notice and that his resignation be accepted immediately. It seems that the Petitioner continued to be in service. However, even thereafter vide another letter dated 8th June, 2001, Petitioner requested the District and Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala to sanction pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 30th September, 2001 and three months notice be treated effective from 30th June, 2001 in terms of H.P. Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules read with Fundamental Rules. The request of the Petitioner was accepted and office orders dated 18th September, 2001 and 22nd September, 2001 was issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, whereby the Petitioner was ordered to be retired w.e.f. 30th September, 2001 (afternoon) from the Government service after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. All statutory benefits consequential to his retirement have been paid to the Petitioner in accordance with law.

(3.) Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Counsel for the Respondent has referred to , titled P. Lal v. Union of India and Ors., 2003 3 SCC 393 in support of her contention that there is no infraction of any Rule and that in the absence of any application for withdrawal seeking the voluntary retirement prior to the effective date, the Petitioner has got no right to assail the order of retirement issued by the Respondent.