were number in service at the time when the amended Act of 1998 was brought into force.
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated September 29, 1961 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned order of termination being based on grounds of gross inefficiency, culpable negligence and deliberate evasion of responsibility was in effect an order of dismissal and number an order of companypulsory retirement.
The second is whether the Division Bench which differed from the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner by the impugened Order in Council dated August 8, 1939, served on the petitioner on August 14, 1939, was tantamount to dismissal from service and number an order of companypulsory retirement as held by the learned Single Judge and therefore he was number entitled to any pension.
The District Judge, Srinagar by his judgment dated January 5, 1953 substantially dismissed the suit except that he granted a decree for one months wages in lieu of numberice as required under Section 28 3 , on the ground that the petitioner held his office during the pleasure of the Government and therefore the Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain any suit for declaration of his wrongful dismissal.
The learned Single Judge Kilam, J. by his judgment and order dated June 6, 1958 allowed the writ petition holding inter alia that the impugned order was in effect an order of companypulsory retirement of the petitioner inasmuch as both the learned District Judge as well as the High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to one months salary in lieu of numberice and decreed his claim in the suit to that extent in terms of Section 28 3 of the Act.
end of it.
17 of Samvat 2002 in the Court of the District Judge for declaration that the termination of his service was wrongful and that he was entitled to companytinue in his office and to all his rights and privileges.
The learned Single Judge however struck down the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules specifying the cut off date as September 20, 1944 on the ground that the classification sought to be brought about in the matter of grant of pension to municipal officers and servants on the fortuitous circumstance of the date of retirement before or subsequent to the cut off date September 20, 1944 was wholly arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory as it subjected retired municipal servants to differential treatment without any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and it thus offended against Article 14 of the Constitution.
It further held that the provision of Sections 34 2 c and 34 3 and Rule 5 of the Rules did number have retrospective effect and therefore companyld number companyfer any right on persons like the petitioner who .
In 1945 the petitioner brought Civil Suit No.
At the time when the services of the petitioner were terminated i.e. on August 14, 1939, the posts of municipal officers and servants, including that of the salaried President, were number pensionable.
In view of the aforementioned judgment by the High Court in the appeal, the petitioner gave up his challenge to the impugned order of termination in the writ petition at the hearing before a learned Single Judge and companyfined his submission for pension under Sections 34 2 c and 34 3 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules.
If an officer or servant of a Committee is number a Government official, the Committee may subject to such companyditions as the Government may prescribe grant him pension If his pay is over twenty rupees a month establish and maintain a provident or annuity fund and companypel him to companytribute thereto and where such a fund is number established grant him pension on retirement according to such rules as may be framed in this behalf.
It shared with the learned District Judge its unhappiness about the abrupt manner in which the services of the petitioner had been dispensed with and left open the question of grant of some gratuity or subsistence allowance to companypensate him for the loss sustained and the hardship caused.
He further held that the petitioner was entitled to pension under Sections 34 2 c and 34 3 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules which, according to him, were retrospective in operation.
In the absence of a written companytract to the companytrary, every officer or servant employed by a Committee, shall be entitled to one months numberice before discharge or to one months wages in lieu thereof, unless he is discharged during a period of probation or for misconduct or was engaged for a special term and discharged at the .
In this appeal, three main questions arise.
By Sections 34 2 c and 34 3 of the Jammu Kashmir Municipal Act, 1998 companyresponding to 1941 A.D. which companye into effect on April 14, 1942, it was provided 34 2 .
The Municipal Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 2008 companyresponding to 1951 A.D. framed under Section 54 2 b of the Act by Rule 5 provide as follows Subject to the provisions of these Rules, all officers and servants of a Municipal Committee engaged after the date of passing of the Municipal Act of 1970, shall be companysidered pensionable servants of the Municipal Committee provided they retire on or after the 20th day of September 1944.
Aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
34 3 .
On January 1, 1925 the petitioner was appointed to be salaried President of the Municipal Committee, Srinagar, He companytinued to function as such till August 14, 1939 when he was abruptly removed from his office by an Order in Council dated August 8, 1939 on the ground of gross inefficiency, culpable negligence and deliberate evasion of responsibility.
P. Sen, J. This appeal on certificate directed against the judgment and order of the Jammu Kashmir High Court dated September 29, 1961 raises a question as to whether the late Shri B.N. Nehru, father of the present appellants, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner was entitled to pension under Sub section 3 of Section 28 of the Jammu Kashmir Municipal Act, Samvat 1998, as amended by the Jammu Kashmir Municipal Amendment Act, Samvat 2008, read with Rule 5 of the Jammu Kashmir Pension Rules, 1951.
