SYED MOHD ABDULLAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON this writ petition coming up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that the facts of this case are identical to the facts of SWP No. 1044 of 1987, decided by this court on 17.6.1991. He even produced a copy of judgment of the said case for the perusal of the court. One copy of judgement of the said case has already been furnished to Mr. Gupta also for his examination. According to him the fate of the present case will also be governed by the said Judgment due to identity of facts and law.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Forestor on 1.6.1969. His date of birth is 18.1.1941. He has been prematurely retired, though his date of retirement on superannuation will be in 1999 after attaining 58 years of age. Under Govt. order No. 296 -Fst of 1987 dated 9.9.87 he has been retired prematurely purportedly in public interest. The said order has been challenged on various grounds.

(3.) THE counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents cannot be considered a proper counter under law. It has been purportedly sworn by one N.L. Bakshi Special Secretary but signed by somebody else. Mr. Gupta learned Additional Advocate General when confronted with this situation, conceded that the said counter is defective in the eye of law. It has not been signed by the person who has sworn it. The result of this would be that the averments made by the petitioner in his petition on an affidavit having remained unrebutted, are to be taken as correct in the eye of law.