KRISHAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition for seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents to the effect that ail three of them were to retire at the age of 60 years, as a consequence whereof they were entitled to pay and allowances etc.; with a further direction to grant them the service pension with interest and costs. Petitioners came to be appointed as Mate/Gang Collie/Gang Mazdoor on 15.11.1956, 15.10.1956 and 11.6.1963 respectively in the Public Works Department, Roads and Building Division at Basohli. All the petitioners claim to have worked continuously till 31.5.1991 without any break. Further case of the petitioners is that petitioners 1 and 2 were brought on the regular establishment of Mate vide order dated 9.2.1984 issued by respondent no.2, and petitioner no.3 was brought on such establishment vide orders of the said respondent dated 13th March, 1984. Case of the petitioners is that as per Article 226 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations read with Schedule II thereof, their age of superannuation was 50 years but the respondents had ordered the pre -mature retirement of all the petitioners with effect from 31.5.91 on their attaining 58 years of age. It is also the case set up in the writ petition by all the petitioners that since they had completed five years of service on 31st July, 1979, therefore in view of Cabinet Decision No: 119 dated 14.3.1980 they were entitled to be absolved on the regular establishment of the department on 31st July, 1979, despite this cabinet decision they were brought on regular establishment on two dates i.e. 9.2.1984 and 13.3.1984, as detailed hereinabove.

(2.) IN the aforesaid background reliefs as noted hereinabove, have been claimed by the petitioners and an order of this court dated 7.11.1991 passed in SWP No: 622/91, in case titled as "Shanti Prakash Vs. State & another", was also pressed into service as an additional ground for the grant of reliefs claimed in the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed one set of objections to the writ petition and respondent No.4 has filed the other set of objections. However common defence in both the objections is that as per Article 226(1) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, All persons, who were in service on 10.10.1966 and were treated inferior as per Schedule I! of these regulations, were to retire on their attaining age of 60 years. Whereas, on the other hand those who were appointed on 1.1.1987 or after that date were to retire on their attaining age of 58 years.

(3.) AS per their own showing petitioners were brought on to regular establishment by the respondents on 9.2.1984, therefore, the petitioners have been rightly retired on their attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years and not 60 years as claimed by them. In the face of these facts it is clearly made out that petitioners were not in service on 10.10.1966 so as to get the age benefit of 60 years for their superannuation. That being so, the plea urged in this behalf by the petitioners is hereby rejected.