Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 969 (PAT)

Sri Bhagwan Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2004-09-15

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order no. 5/99, issued vide memo no. 11 dated 8.2.1999, whereby and whereunder appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner retired on 31st May, 1990 and the petitioner worked as Abji Chowkidar and thereafter he continued on the post. It is further submitted that the State Government took a policy decision, which was notified in letter no. 9/Son-207/Gri Arakshi 1287 dated 20th December, 1995 to the effect that the Chowkidar, who retired after 1.1.1990, would be entitled to nominate his ward to work as nominee Chowkidar and since the father of the petitioner retired with effect from 31.5.1990, his nominee, namely, the petitioner was entitled to continue in services in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the factum of date of retirement of the father of the petitioner is disputed. It is stated that the father of the petitioner retired on 31st December, 1989 and as per the policy decision of the State Government dated 17.1.1990 his nominee was not entitled to continue in his place, as the father of the petitioner had retired after completing the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. 5. The concept of Abji Chowkidar is well accepted concept in view of the policy decision of the State Government, as referred to above, and a person, who has served for some time and wanted to retire prematurely, can nominate his ward to work in his place. 6. Since the petitioner retired with effect from 31.12.1989 after attaining the age of superannuation, in my opinion, he has no authority to nominate his ward to continue to work in his place as Chowkidar. The impugned order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner, therefore suffers from no infirmity nor the petitioner is required to be reconsidered by the authorities concerned. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.