LAWS(J&K)-2001-10-6

BAL KRISHAN S/O SH PRABHU DUTT Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, J&K GOVERNMENT

Decided On October 19, 2001
Bal Krishan S/O Sh Prabhu Dutt Appellant
V/S
State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, JAndK Government Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to dispose of this appeal (LPA (SW) No. 343/2001) at the preliminary stage.

(2.) THE appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 22nd February, 2001 passed by the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition holding it without merit.

(3.) SETTING in facts of the case, writ petitioner was an employee of PHE department holding a post of plant repairer in the city division. Main plank of his contention is that his case falls within the purview of schedule -II in the list of appointments specifically classed as inferior under Article 226 (i) of the Civil Service Regulations and was, thus, to superannuate at the age of 60 years. That the retirement of the writ petitioner at the age of 58 years was illegal and subject to hostile discrimination. His further submission is that, another employee Gujjar Singh, who too was working as Plant Repairer, was retired on attaining the age of 60 years. The specific stand of the respondents in the demurrer was that the post of Plant Repairer does not fall in the category notified, as appointments specifically classed as inferior in Schedule -II of Civil Service Regulations in the Water Works Department. That in case of Gujjar Singh, the order of retirement at the age of 60 years was in violation of the Rules and, thus, writ petitioner is not vested with any right to claim benefit on such analogy. Further plea taken by the respondents was that the petitioner was in the revised pay scale of Rs 1400 -1600 at the time of his retirement provided to class -III employees and, thus, on this count also, the claim of the writ petitioner was stated to be legally untenable. It is not disputed that the post of Plant Repairer does not fall in anyone of the categories indicated in Schedule -II under the heading "Water Works Department" and employer of the writ petitioner. It is pertinent to point out that the employment of the writ petitioner is in terms and conditions governed by the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. Superannuation age of 60 year's available only in case of appointments specially classed as inferior. It is not for the court to give the meaning different than what is not contemplated in the rules in view of its true import on a plan reading.