HARI CHAND RAINA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition submitted by one Hari Chand Raina for securing a writ of Mandamus -or any other appropriate writ. His prayer in the petition is that the petitioner having been retired from service prematurely, has been deprived firstly, of his annual increment of Rs. 5/ -, and secondly, the benefit of privilege leave for two months plus 15 days which he would have earned in the year 2005 & furlough leave of eleven months & 20 days,, and full pay from Bhadon 2005 at the rate of Rs. 1007 - per month to the date of his retirement. In terms of money the petitioner claims a total of Rs. 1405/ - in addition to a recurring loss -of Rs. 3/10/ - per month in his pension which according to the petitioner he would have got at the rate of Rs. 44/4/ - if he had been retired in the ordinary course instead of Rs. 40710/ - which is sanctioned in his favour. The facts that have given rise to this writ petition may be summarized as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner was in the service of the Forest Department. After serving the department for a period of about 33 years he was put on forced leave by the Chief Conservator of Forests on 18 -9 -2004, the ground for so doing being that the Government had abolished the Hill Forest Circle Jammu which necessitated retrenchment in the Forest Department as a whole. On the day when the petitioner was put on forced leave, the petitioner was drawing Rs. 957 - per month as Head Clerk in the grade of 75 -5 -100. Eventually the petitioner was retired on 25th Bhadon 2005. He was granted an anticipatory pension of Rs. 40/10/ -. In ordinary course the petitioner was due for retirement on 23 -12 -2005. According to the petitioner this premature retire -merit and his being put on forced leave from 18 -9 -2004 has resulted in the losses that have been mentioned in the beginning of this order.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he made various submissions to the Government in this behalf and the matter was finally decided by the Government by its order No. 705 -C of 55 dated 20 -5 -1955, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner be treated as having been placed on leave from 18 -9 -04 and further that the petitioner would not be held entitled to any increment after 1 -10 -05. The petitioner applied for review of the Cabinet Order which also was rejected on 24 -12 -1955. He has taken the plea that his case has been finally disposed of in the year 1955, and this order of the Cabinet being a post -Constitution order can be challenged by means of this writ petition. The position taken by him in this behalf has not been assailed by the other side.