STATE OF J&K Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants 1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge on Oct. 28,1994 in SWP No. 1110 of 1994, have come up in the present appeal, challenging the correctness and legality of the findings recorded and the conclusion reached by the Single Judge, on the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant. He has taken us through the facts and questions of law arising in the instant case. He has also brought to our notice that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the ration of a judgment delivered by this High Court in State vs. Prem Singh Civil 2nd Appeal No. 24 of 1993 decided on Sept, 11, 1993 with a view to dispose of the matter in S. W. P. No. 1110 of 1994 in favour of the Write petitioner (respondent) and against the State (appellant) is erroneous and the same cannot sustain in law.

(3.) AS to the legal questions in the instant case, Shri Baldev Singh learned G. A., brought to our notice the relevant provisions of law governing the subject matter. He has brought to our notice that the respondent (Writ petitioner), Sita Ram, had been inducted into service as inferior class somewhere in the year 1957. Indeed, he was, working as such at the crucial point of time, namely, Oct. 10. 1966, but later on, it is submitted, he (writ petitioner) had been promoted to the post of Technician -II with the pay scale attached to the post (Rs 1200 -2040) with effect from August 12, 1987; whereas he (Sita Ram) had been sought to be superannuated by an order made on Sept. 2, 1994 giving effect from Oct. 31, 1994. It is relevant to note here, according to Shri Baldev Sing, GA, that even earlier and before he was promoted to the post of Techincian -II, he was promoted to the post of line Eractor and from that post he had been promoted to the post of Techincian -ll with salary attached to the post (Rs. 1200 -2040). Therefore, Shri Baldev Singh learned Govt. Advocate submits that regard being had to scheduled -ll of Article 226 of the J & K Civil Service Regulations (Vol. I), "hereinafter referred to as the Regulation", a person holding the post of Technician -11 drawing the pay scale of Rs 1200 -2040 shall not come within the purview of inferior service. In that view of matter, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in extending the benefit of 60 years instead of 58 years in favour of the writ petitioner (Sita Ram) which is illegal and not sustainable in law. Therefore, he submits that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the order under the appeal set aside.