MOHAMMAD TASEEN DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In SWP No.1543/2016, the case of the petitioner is that he served the respondent Organization for more than 30 years. It is stated that during his entire service period, the petitioner has not been paid the salary for some periods, constraining the petitioner to file a number of representations. On the basis of the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner claims that he was paid part payment of Rs. 50,000/- only. It is stated that the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation on 31st of March, 2016 and is entitled to retirement benefits, including Gratuity, Leave Salary, CP Fund, etc, which has been withheld by the respondents, without any rhyme or reason. On these set of facts, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

(2.) Likewise, in SWP No. 493/2017, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Field Officer in the respondent Society in the year 1985 and the respondent No.7 was junior to him. The petitioner and respondent No.7 were promoted as Managers in the year 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Social Welfare Department and, at his back, the respondent No.7 was given the charge of Assistant General Manager in his own pay and grade, and, after a few months, the grade attached to the said post was also released in his favour. The petitioner filed a representation before the competent authority against the said action, but no action in respect thereto was taken by the respondents, constraining the petitioner to challenge the same before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. This appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled to the said promotion with a further stipulation to the respondents to grant said promotion to the petitioner with all consequential benefits as also the pay and grade attached to the said post. It is stated that the respondents neither implemented the said decision nor did they challenge the same before any higher forum and promoted the respondent No.7 during the interregnum. It is further contended that instead of complying with the aforesaid judgment issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, the respondent No.4 issued the order dated 25th of April, 2013, whereby the respondent No.7 was asked to function as Officer Incharge, JAKFED, Regional Office Srinagar vice Shri Faiz Ahmad Khalil who was posted as Incharge General Manager Head Office Jammu and, subsequently, vide order dated 27th of April, 2013, the order dated 25th of April, 2013, was partially modified and the respondent No.7 was deemed to have been designated as Incharge Deputy General Manager in his own pay and grade. The petitioner has proceeded to state that while issuing the aforesaid orders, the petitioner was not considered, although he was senior to the respondent No.7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a representation before the Minister of State, Department of Cooperatives/ Fisheries, which came to be forwarded to the respondent No.4 on 22nd of November, 2013, for examination and necessary action. Despite lapse of a considerable period of time, no action was taken as regards the said representation by the respondents and the petitioner was forced and coerced to file a writ petition, being SWP no. 2584/2013. In the said writ petition, on consideration of the matter, this Court vide an interim order dated 27th of December, 2013, while disposing of the connected Interim Application, directed the respondents to accord consideration to the representation already moved by the petitioner and the result thereof be communicated to the petitioner. It is contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner superannuated on 31st of March, 2016. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 27th of December, 2013, by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, on 29th of November, 2016, the earlier petition, being SWP No. 2584/2013, was disposed of by this Court by observing that the claim of the petitioner has been considered in the order dated 26th of October, 2016, passed by the respondents. This Court, accordingly, gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 26th of October, 2016. In this backdrop, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following relief(s):

(3.) Heard and considered.