MOHD AMIN WANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment dated 30.9.2005 passed in SWP No. 1839 of 1999 this Court passed following directions:

(2.) THIS order appears to have been challenged by respondents by way of an LPA which was dismissed by learned appellate bench with the observation that since appellant -Government had already implemented the judgment in part by constituting a committee which had furnished report to the Government and directed that the writ court judgment impugned in the LPA be placed before Cabinet for taking decision on report of the committee. Around an year after writ court judgment the Registrar, Cooperative on basis of Government order No. 66 -Coop of 2006 dated: 28.8.2006 issued a communication dated: 12.1.2007 spelling out the details of employees and modalities of Golden Handshake Scheme without mentioning the officials who would benefit therefrom.

(3.) COMPLAINING that respondent/Government was trying to side line them under the pretext of having accepted the offer of Golden Handshake Scheme, petitioners in these petitions seek settlement of their cases in terms of the spirit of writ court judgment and the Cabinet Order of 1999 mentioned therein, on the ground that they did not accept the Golden Handshake Scheme and even though some of them might have agreed to it at some point of time, the non performance on part of government side rendered the agreement useless because their inaction scrapped the whole idea. Accordingly they pray that the said committee constituted under the Government order No. 33 -Coop of 2006 dated: 20.1.2006 and order No. 8 -Coop of 2007 dated: 3.4.2007 be asked to examine their cases for adjustment in service to exclusion of Golden Handshake scheme etc. This is resisted by other side by pleading that all the petitioners in the writ petitions had opted for Golden Handshake scheme prepared by Government for them and as such they could not jump over the agreement regarding acceptance of the scheme to seek adjustment in terms of Cabinet Order of 1999 particularly because the same stands modified vide certain later orders. During course of submissions the appearing counsel have reiterated their respective stands taken in pleadings.