Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 393 (JK)

Abdul Majid Zargar v. State of JK

2015-08-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Admittedly, petitioner was serving as Senior Assistant in ARI Trainings Department. Registration of the case FIR No. 200/2005 against him for commission of offences punishable under Section 420/467/468/471 and 120-B RPC gave rise to a situation in pursuance whereof petitioner has been placed under suspension vide Government order No. 1557-GAD of 2005 dated 17th December, 2005. Noticing that the continued suspension is not being reviewed, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition in the year 2013 praying for following reliefs: "In the premises, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashment of suspension order bearing No. 1557-GAD of 2005 dated 17.12.2005 issued by respondent No. 2.” “Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant all benefits both in terms of monetary and promotion-wise to the petitioner, with a further command to settle the pension case of the petitioner at an earliest, and to compensate the petitioner in terms of damages for the mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10.00 lac. 2. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed the reply wherein it is stated that vide Government Order 1458-GAD of 2013 dated 14th October, 2013, petitioner has been reinstated with effect from 30th July, 2012 i.e. one day prior to his date of retirement i.e. 31st July, 2012. Copy of the said order as placed on record would suggest that the period of suspension has to be decided separately. Furthermore, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Urdu Co-ordination Cell) shall process the case of provisional pension of the petitioner in accordance with the rules. 3. With the issue of Government Order No. 1458-GAD of 2013 dated 14.10.2013, the first relief i.e. quashment of order of suspension bearing No. 1557-GAD of 2005 dated 17th December, 2005 no more survives for any further consideration. 4. The only matter which requires consideration is settlement of pensionary benefits of the petitioner. In the reply, the matter has been specifically dealt with as it is stated that the Home Department has been requested to complete the investigation vis-à-vis case as had been registered against the petitioner followed by reminders dated 23.10.2013 and 07.08.2014. 4. The only matter which requires consideration is settlement of pensionary benefits of the petitioner. In the reply, the matter has been specifically dealt with as it is stated that the Home Department has been requested to complete the investigation vis-à-vis case as had been registered against the petitioner followed by reminders dated 23.10.2013 and 07.08.2014. Then again vide communication dated 26th August, 2014, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary affairs has been requested to obtain the service record including service book of the petitioner from the ARI and Trainings Department and to process pension case of the petitioner as per Government order No. 1458-GAD of 2013 dated 14th October, 2013 which could not materialize despite repeated reminders, last reminder having been sent on 23rd April, 2015. Finally it is stated in the reply that the period of suspension of the petitioner can be decided only after conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 5. The criminal case against the petitioner has been registered in the year 2005. Ten years have elapsed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner investigation has not been concluded as a result whereof no charge-sheet (Challan) has been filed against the petitioner. The uncertain situation and the position of the petitioner on financial front has got complicated resultantly petitioner as well as family is subjected to starvation. Disciplinary proceedings or other proceedings whatever shall have to be finalized in accordance with the law at an earliest. 6. The submission is very attractive but the respondents have taken care of the position of the petitioner as his reinstatement has been given effect one day prior to his retirement date. Side by side, it has been made clear that case for provisionally pension shall be processed whereas suspension period can be settled later on conclusion of the criminal trial, which in turn would suggest that the respondents have done whatever was within their domain, nothing more is required to be done by them. 7. In the stated facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that they shall pursue the case of the petitioner in the following manner: (i) That they shall take steps for settling the provisional pension case of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is served upon them. (ii) That they shall take appropriate steps whatever required at their respective level so as to pave way for settling the final pension case of the petitioner. Petition accordingly disposed of alongwith connected CMP.