STATE OF J&K Vs. IMTIYAZ AHMAD LARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant State against the judgment and order dtd. 25/6/2018, for short impugned judgment, passed by the writ court in a writ petition, SWP no. 51/2017, titled Imtiyaz Ahmad Lara v. State of J&K, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner/ respondent herein has been allowed and the order questioned therein has been quashed with further direction to the respondent/ appellant herein to reinstate the petitioner and grant him all the consequential benefits within a period of one month.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned judgment is made inter alia on the grounds that it is against the mandate of law for having not appreciated the stand of the respondents/ appellants herein in its right perspective; it did not consider the factual aspect of the matter in its entirety as nothing is said about the main allegation made against the respondent forming basis for his premature retirement; it is bad in law because it has not seen whether there was sufficient material/ record available with the Review Committee for framing its opinion and recommending for premature retirement of the respondent; it has traversed beyond jurisdiction by scrutinizing the minute details; it is based on the judgment titled State of Gujrat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported as 1998 (9) Supreme 150 and (1999) 1 SCC 529, which had different set of facts than the case in hand; the decision of retiring the petitioner/ respondent herein prematurely was issued on the basis of material available and not arbitrarily as held in the impugned judgment; the order of premature retirement of the petitioner/ respondent was issued in public interest; the order impugned in the writ petition was issued in terms and not contrary to the guidelines contained in the Government Order No. GAD(Vig)19-Adm-2010 dtd. 25/1/2010; the order of compulsory retirement was issued by the Committee comprising highest level of officers of the State headed by the Chief Secretary after having detailed deliberations; the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic and is based on subjective satisfaction of an employer and the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited; the interference with the order is permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind or if it is mala-fide, perverse, arbitrary or if there is non- compliance of statutory duty; the employer is within his rights to compulsorily retire the employee if the latter is considered to be a deadwood and of no utility to the former.

(3.) The appeal in hand was time barred and in terms of order dtd. 12/11/2018, the delay of 66 days that had crept in filing the appeal was condoned.