STATE OF JANDK AND OTHERS Vs. BRAHAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State against order dated 12.09.2013 made in SWP No. 653/2005 wherein respondent has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 26.04.2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of compulsory retirement. The case of respondent before learned Single Judge was that he was engaged as Daily wager and was subsequently regularized in the year 1971. He was put as Incharge stores under the supervision of one Jai Krishan and in the year 1975-76 for shortage of rice to the extent of 200 qtls departmental proceedings were initiated, however, the same were dropped by the Government and the shortage was write off. The said Jai Krishan, even though was supervisor and was the custodian of the Stores, was considered for promotion to the higher post inspite of pendency of departmental proceedings. The respondent was continuously forced to serve as Junior Assistant. The respondent approached the appellants for his promotion but no order was passed and by order dated 26.04.2005 he was compulsorily retired from service even though he was due to retire on superannuation in 2006.

(2.) The order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the respondent on the ground that having served for more than 34 years without any blemish except the alleged shortage which was also condoned by the Government and the appellants having granted promotion to a person who was responsible for the stores, namely Jai Krishan, there was discriminatory treatment meted out and while passing the order of compulsory retirement the entire service record of the respondent was not taken into consideration which is mandatory condition to be taken note of by the Government before ordering compulsory retirement of a Government servant.

(3.) The learned Single Judge called for the entire service record of the respondent. The appellants failed to produce the service records and the only document produced was photostat copy of the record which was the basis of the impugned order. In the said record produced, it was stated that a Committee was constituted under Article 226(2) and 226(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations to consider the pre-mature retirement cases of the officers who have become dead wood and whose performance and reputation as a whole has affected the administration and also for the public purpose. In the said Photostat copy of the document produced the learned Single Judge found that the conduct and performance of respondent was shown as satisfactory and there was no adverse entry in the APRs' of the respondent till 2005. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in , 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 (S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa) wherein it is clearly held that the entire service record of the Government Servant has to be assessed before effecting compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge also followed the judgment of this Court in SWP No. 1965/2003, against which LPA No. 140/2006 was dismissed on 10.08.2009 by the Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition No. 1763/2010 preferred by the State against the said judgment of the Division Bench was rejected on 26.02.2010, and held that as the performance of the respondent throughout his career was satisfactory and there was no adverse entry, hence the order of compulsory retirement was found as bad and set aside the same.