B N NEHRU Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition submitted by Mr. B. N. Nehru who was at one time the President of the Srinagar Municipality with the prayer that a writ of Mandamus be issued to the Municipal Committee Srinagar with the direction that the petitioner be paid his salary from the date of the termination of his service to the date when his retirement would have been due according to rules, and further that the petitioner be paid his pension admissible under the rules from the date of the termination of his services till he is alive.

(2.) THE facts that have given rise to the writ petition may be briefly summarized as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as the paid President of the Municipal Committee Srinagar in the year 1925. He continued in service till 1939 when his services were terminated by the Government vide Council Order dated 8 -8 -39. This order was challenged by the petitioner in a civil court as being "ultra vires and inoperative. The District judge in whose court the case was instituted held by his judgment dated 5 -1 -1953 22 -9 -09 that the petitioners services were terminated by the competent authority and as such the order by which his services were terminated could not be declared as ultra vires. The District Judge further found that one months notice which was due to the petitioner under S. 28 of the Municipal Act then in force was not given to him, and that the petitioner was entitled according to law to one months pay in lieu of the notice. The District Judge passed a decree in favour of the petitioner for this amount. As regards the petitioners claim to the pension, the District Judge held that the prayer for pension not having been included in the plaint by the petitioner no such relief could be granted to him. He, however, left the door open to the petitioner to approach the authorities for getting this relief. The petitioner appealed to the High Court against the decree of the District Judge and also made an application to the Development Minister who was then in charge of the Municipalities for grant of pension. The Development Minister informed the petitioner by his letter 190 -M -53, dated 4 -9 -1954 that the petitioner was not entitled to get any pension, because the proviso to R. 25 of the Municipal Pension Rules promulgated in 1951 entitled only those officers to pension who were retired after 20 -9 -1944 and that orders for payment of one months pay in lieu of notice were issued to the Municipal Committee. Ultimately the petitioner made the present petition to this court for securing the reliefs which have been mentioned in the very beginning. Before me very lengthy arguments were advanced by and on behalf of the petitioner. During argument; the petitioner pressed onlv for getting relief with regard to pension and did not press for any relief in regard to the termination of his services.