Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 213 (JK)

Ab. Rahim Sofi v. State of J&K

2015-04-28

B.S.WALIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Helper in the office of the Executive Engineer, Flood Spill Channel, Division Narbal, has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the order of consideration made by the respondents qua petitioner's voluntary retirement with a further prayer that the respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service etcetera. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the Flood Control Spill Channel Division, Srinagar, on 04.09.1994 and continued working as such in the department till the demise of his son. It is further alleged that thereupon the respondents played fraud with the petitioner and taking advantage of his mental imbalance, manipulated and obtained an application for voluntary retirement from the petitioner. 2. SWP No. 996/2013 filed by the petitioner two and a half years after the acceptance of request for voluntary retirement challenging his voluntary retirement was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's representation and to take decision in the matter preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. The petitioner has impugned order Annexure 'E' dated 23.10.2013, i.e., rejection of representation for taking petitioner back in service. A perusal of the said order reveals that in terms of Article 230 of Jammu & Kashmir CSR, sanction was granted to the voluntary retirement of the petitioner vide Executive Engineer's Order No. 16 of 2009-10 issued under endorsement No. FSCDN/EC/4069-97 dated 27.01.2010 and that pursuant thereto the petitioner received all pensionary benefits, i.e., gratuity, leave salary etc. besides he regularly received pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that medical certificate Annexure 'C dated 04.12.2013 issued by the office of the Medical Superintendent, Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, mentions that the petitioner was a case of major depressive disorder with post traumatic stress and currently on treatment from the Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order Annexure 'E' has been passed without considering the medical condition of the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid position reveals that due to unfortunate death of the son of the petitioner, the petitioner could not discharge duties, therefore, submitted an application for voluntary retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order Annexure 'E' has been passed without considering the medical condition of the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid position reveals that due to unfortunate death of the son of the petitioner, the petitioner could not discharge duties, therefore, submitted an application for voluntary retirement. The petitioner on acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement on 27.01.2010 received gratuity/leave salary besides regularly received pension. 6. What emerges further is that on 03.06.2013, SWP No. 996/2013 was disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner. Nothing prevented the petitioner from placing a medical certificate on record but he failed to do so. However, the same would not alter the position since as per the stand of the petitioner, after the death of his son he was in a state of mental imbalance. He alleges that application for voluntary retirement was obtained from him by taking advantage of his mental condition but the fact remain that on acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement vide order dated 27.01.2010, the petitioner accepted retiral benefits and regularly received pension and challenged the voluntary retirement only in June, 2013. Having received financial benefits as also pension regularly with effect from date of acceptance of request for voluntary retirement, the petitioner s challenge for the first time two and a half years after acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement culminated in passing of the impugned order pursuant to the direction of this Court to decide the representation of the petitioner, the plea that the request for voluntary retirement was obtained from the petitioner by taking advantage of his mental condition does not inspire confidence. Likewise, the medical certificate relied upon is of a date sob-sequent to the date of passing of the impugned order Nothing prevented he petitioner from filing a medical certificate earlier. Not having done so, the petitioner cannot fault the respondents for the same. In any case acceptance of retiral benefits besides regularly receiving pension and filing a writ petition only two and a half years after acceptance of request for voluntary retirement and now filing a writ petition to challenge the impugned order close to 17 months thereafter reveals that the plea of the petitioner is baseless No other point has been argued. In any case acceptance of retiral benefits besides regularly receiving pension and filing a writ petition only two and a half years after acceptance of request for voluntary retirement and now filing a writ petition to challenge the impugned order close to 17 months thereafter reveals that the plea of the petitioner is baseless No other point has been argued. In the aforementioned background, having considered the matter from all aspects, I am of the considered view that the impugned order Annexure 'E' dated 23.10.2013 is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference. Writ petition is dismissed in limine alongwith CMP.