MOHD BAQIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that petitioner was appointed as a driver in terms of annexure -P 1. The petitioner applied for 10 days casual leave on 11.05.1985, which was duly sanctioned by respondent no.2 in his favour. The petitioner had to resume his duties on 21st of May, 1985, but due to domestic problems the petitioner applied for extension of leave. The petitioner reported back in the office of respondent no.3 on 21.07.1985 and he was informed that extension of leave sought by him has been rejected and he has been placed under suspension by respondent no.4 vide Order No.217 -18/Coop dated 31.05.1985 and one Ghulam Mohammad was appointed on adhoc basis for a period of three months in terms of annexure P2. In the said order, it is mentioned that petitioner was called for duty after availing ten days casual leave vide letter No. 125/Coop/DR dated 17.05.1985 and No.l32/Coop -DRDK dated 20.05.1985 and the petitioner refused to attend duty and which amounted to non -compliance of the orders and warranted disciplinary action under Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and, therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect from 21.05.1985. The suspension allowance was not paid to the petitioner. He made representations contained in annexures P3 to P5. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1011 of 1994, the said petition was admitted to hearing on 10th May, 1994. The order was served to respondent no.4, instead of paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner, the respondent no.4 addressed a communication dated 21.05.1994 to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was informed that petitioner has been discharged from service nine years back and as such, payment of subsistence allowance does not arise. The said communication is contained in annexure -P6. Neither the order of discharge was served upon the petitioner nor was he informed that his services have been discharged till 21stMay, 1995.

(2.) IT appears that SWP No. 1819/1994 has been filed on 14lh July, 1994. Notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 at the first instance vide order dated 18th July, 1994 and the respondents were directed to produce record relating to discharge of the petitioner. The respondents have failed to produce record. It appears that objections have been filed on 7th September, 1994 by Mr. G. Mustaffa, GA and the copy of the said termination order was given to Mr. Beigh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Beigh stated at Bar that he was not aware about passing of the order and sought permission to amend the writ petition. The permission was granted. Peti -tioner filed amended petition on 14th July, 1995. Mr. G. Mustaffa made a statement that objections already filed be treated as objections to the amended petition, same was allowed vide order dated 21st December, 1995. The petition stands admitted vide order dated 9th August, 2000. It is profitable to reproduce said order herein: - "Admit. Objections filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 are treated as counter. Rejoinder, if any, within three weeks. Process for hearing thereafter.

(3.) THE petitioner filed rejoinder on 19thSeptember, 2002 and this is how the case has ripen up for final hearing. Mr. Wani argued that petition be dismissed on the ground of latches and delay.