news details |
|
|
| Seniority case of Deputy Director ICDS | | DB remands petition to Writ Court for deciding it afresh | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 31- Setting aside the judgment of the Writ Court the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court today remanded the petition to the Writ Court for deciding it afresh within a period of one month.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Sunil Hali in LPA filed by M Peshin, who retired from Service on January 31, 1995 as Deputy Director ICDS, remanded the petition to the writ Court for deciding the petition a fresh after calling for counter from the official respondents, who shall file the same within a period of four weeks. The writ court would decide the case within one month thereafter, the DB directed.
Challenging the judgment of the Single Judge dated September 4, 2000 senior Advocate SS Lehar with Advocate Akshay Anand, who appeared for the appellant in the LPA, submitted that appellant being the number one in the seniority list was denied the benefits when the induction was made to time scale in 1991 to KAS while his junior were given the benefit of such induction It was further submitted that private respondent NO 6 along with other four persons were junior to the appellant but despite that they were given the benefit. The appellant preferred a representation before the Authority which was not decided and hence filed a writ petition in which it has been submitted that 38 officers of J&K Social Welfare Department, including four persons, who had already retired from service were granted the benefit of time scale but the claim of the appellant was not considered.
The DB in its judgment written by Justice Nirmal Singh observed that in the present case the appellant is seeking parity with respondent No 6 and other persons who have been granted benefit of induction into time scale and J&K Administrative Service even after their retirement which benefit has been denied to the appellant. Therefore, in the absence of any reply by the official respondents, it could not have been concluded that the appellant may have been or was denied the benefit on account of his not possessing the merit even though he was number one in the seniority list. The pleadings on the other hand having remained un- rebutted and unchallenged should have been accepted by the Writ Court. Keeping in view the facts, DB observed that as the respondents have not chosen to file any response in the present appeal also even though the same was admitted on November 2, 2000 but in the interest of the justice, deem it proper that the matter is decided after obtaining the response from the official respondents. With these observations Division Bench set-aside the judgment passed by Writ Court on September 4, 2000 and remanded the case to the Writ Court for deciding a fresh. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
