MOHD SADIQ FANI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was reported to have died on 14 -1 -1981. Two applications came to be filed by some personâ„¢s claming to be his legal representatives for seeking permission to be substituted for the petitioner and to persue the writ petition CMP No. 187 of 1981 and CMP No. 63 of 1982 are on the file. In CMP No. 187/1981 no orders have been passed. However in CMP No. 63/1981 this court by its order dated 2 -2 -1986 allowed substitution subject to all just exceptions to be decided at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. The index was ordered to be corrected. A similar order is therefore required to be passed in CMP No.187/1981 because no objections, to that application were filed that application therefore, is allowed subject to just exceptions. As a result o the aforesaid discussion, persons named in CMP No. 187/81 and 63/1982 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased and as to whether they can persue the writ petition is to be decided separately. However, grant of substitution applications shall not be construed to mean that this court is giving any finding on the entitlement of the persons shown in the two applications to inherit the property of the deceased -petitioner. These persons are brought only to continue the litigation, if the right of the deceased petitioner could be considered even after his death.

(2.) PETITIONER had challenged the order dated 22 -11 -1976 whereby he was relieved from duty on the ground that his date of birth was 10 -4 -1969 (Bk) instead of 17 -9 -1980 (Bk) entered in this service book. He also had challenged the order dated 15 -11 -1976 wherein it was conveyed to him that his date of birth was 10 -4 -1969(Bk) instead of 17 -9 -1980 (Bk) and he was unauthorisedly in service since 23 -7 -1967 A.D. He was asked to show cause why he should not be retired on 22 -11 -76 (A.D). Challenge is also thrown to order Dated 21 -1 -1977 whereby the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner as regard correction of date of birth of the petitioner was confirmed. That order is annexed as Annexed -5 to the petition.

(3.) PETITIONERS case was that the three orders are liable to be quashed as they are violative of his fundamental rights and passed without an enquiry and are arbitrary and illegal. He claimed that he was entitled to be in service on the basis of his actual date of birth which according to him was 17.9. 1980 (bk) as was entered in his service book. The writ petition was filed by him on 13.12. 1976. During the pendency of that writ petition order dated 21.1.1977 was passed. Therefore he amended the writ petition and presented the amended writ petition on 16. 8. 1977. On 12.1.1978. The writ petition had ripened for hearing.