Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 696 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Ganie v. Managing Director

2022-12-14

SANJAY DHAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to release his unpaid salary which is stated to have been withheld with effect from August, 2021. A further direction has been sought commanding the respondents to process the case of the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits taking his date of superannuation as 31st March, 2022. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Class-IV employee (Peon) in the respondent Corporation in the year 1995. The petitioner after completing the probation period was brought on regular establishment by the respondent Corporation and at that time, he furnished all the requisite certificates, namely, academic certificate, date of birth certificate, medical certificate, state subject certificate and character certificate. According to the petitioner, his date of birth in the service record was recorded as 01.04.1962, which has neither been changed nor disputed by anyone. The petitioner is stated to have applied for voluntary retirement vide his application dated 17th August, 2021 on account of his ill health but neither his application was accepted by the respondent Corporation nor he is being paid any salary with effect from August, 2021. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation has now started verifying the date of birth of the petitioner that was recorded in his service book way back in the year 1995. It is further submitted that when the respondent Corporation did not process the petitioner/s case for release of retiral benefits nor did they accept his voluntary retirement application, the petitioner withdrew his application for voluntary retirement and sought release of salary for nine months for which he has worked with the respondent Corporation since August, 2021. It is averred that even if voluntary retirement application of the petitioner is not accepted, still then he has reached the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2022 and he is entitled to get all the retiral benefits. 3. Despite availing various opportunities, the respondents did not chose to file reply to the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The short question which is involved in this writ petition is as to from which date the petitioner is treated to have attained the age of superannuation. 3. Despite availing various opportunities, the respondents did not chose to file reply to the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The short question which is involved in this writ petition is as to from which date the petitioner is treated to have attained the age of superannuation. According to the respondents, the date of birth which has been recorded in the service record of the petitioner could not be verified from the concerned school and they are in the process of verification of the date of birth of the petitioner. For this reason, it seems, the respondents are not taking necessary steps for releasing the retriable benefits of the petitioner. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee (Peon) in the respondent Corporation and he has served the said Corporation for a number of years. The question whether date of birth of the petitioner actually recorded in his service record is correct or not may not have much bearing on the relief that is being sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. If the said date of birth is correct, then the petitioner is treated to have superannuated on 31st March, 2022. If the correct date of birth of the petitioner is any date prior to one recorded in his service records, still then he has reached the age of superannuation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has stated that whatever date of birth of the petitioner the respondents decide to record, still then he is entitled to get the retiral benefits and as per the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation, its retired employees are not entitled to payment of pension. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in any eventuality the respondents cannot deny retiral benefits to the petitioner and they cannot deny him the salary for the period for which he has actually worked with the respondent Corporation. 8. There is not much contest to the above proposition propounded by the petitioner from the counsel for the respondents. 8. There is not much contest to the above proposition propounded by the petitioner from the counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record communication dated 06.12.2022 whereby the Chief Medical Officer, Health Department, J&K Government, Kulgam, has been asked to determine the age of the petitioner by applying the medical procedure because it seems that the date of birth certificate of the petitioner that was produced by the petitioner at the time of his appointment could not be verified from the concerned school as the record of the said school has been gutted in fire. 9. In view of what has been noted hereinbefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the retiral benefits and the salary for the period for which he has actually worked with the respondent Corporation. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by providing as under: (I) The respondents shall either treat the petitioner as having retired on 31st March, 2022 or get his date of birth verified either by a medical procedure or by any other mode. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is made available to them. (II) After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall take immediate steps for release of retiral/service benefits of the petitioner including the salary for the period for which he has actually worked with the respondent Corporation. CCP(S) No.237/2022 10. With the disposal of main writ petition, this contempt petition does not survive for any further consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed. The contempt petition shall stand disposed of.