PEERZADA GH NABI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents for release of his salary for the period he has continued in service under the court orders pending enquiry regarding his disputed date of birth by the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioners case is that he, on adoption of his incorrect date of birth 4 -5 -1929 by the respondents, filed writ petition No. 297/84 against the said action and the court, on disposal of the petition, passed the following judgment (annexure A to the petition): As agreed to by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is directed that fresh enquiry shall be conducted in regard to the date of birth of the petitioner by the competent authority in which the petitioner shall be associated and afforded reasonable opportunity of putting his case. Till the finalisation of the enquiry, the petitioner shall not be retired from the service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to salary as he has performed his duties as a Government servant. This prayer has been opposed by learned CGA. I, however, leave this point to be settled by the competent authority.

(3.) WITH these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner, consequent to the above court order, continued in Government service till finalisation of enquiry vide order No, 61 -GRF of 1986 dated 9 -5 -1986, but the respondents treated him retired with effect from 31 -5 -1984 AN, but did not release pay emoluments for the period he had continued in service after the court order dated 26 -12 -1984 to which he is entitled as a matter of right due to service rendered, whether under court order or otherwise. This is the sole prayer of the petitioner for release of his pay dues for the period he has continued in service.