Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
By means of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned retirement date 30.06.2013 in the interest of justice.
ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay two year salary w.e.f. 01.07.2013 upto 30.06.2015 contained as Annexure No. 1 alongwith gratuity and other retiral benefit at bank rate interest 12% as per rule of Indian Gratuity Act on account of fault of department, in the interest of justice."
The case set forth by learned counsel for petitioner is that while working in the Board of Revenue the petitioner had been sent on deputation to the District Rural Development Agency(DRDA) vide order dated 05.02.1986, a copy of which is annexure RA-1 to rejoinder affidavit wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial number 6 of the said list.
It is contended that the petitioner continued to work in the DRDA when the notice for retirement was issued to him on 29.06.2013 and he retired on 30.06.2013 from the DRDA. It is contented that as he was an employee of Board of Revenue as such he should have been returned back to the Board of Revenue but he was also not permitted to join in the Board of Revenue and has thus claimed the aforesaid relief.
Learned counsel for petitioner also contends that the service book of the petitioner had been prepared and the petitioner had also been promoted by the Board of Revenue. The extract of the service book of the petitioner is annexure 6 to the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner claims that certain other persons who had been appointed on the aforesaid post and scheme continued in the Board of Revenue itself and have been granted service benefits and as such the petitioner is entitled for the relief(s) as has been prayed for by means of this petition.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that the petitioner had been appointed on temporary basis in the Board of Revenue under a programme namely Agriculture Census, Animal Census & Demonstration Scheme created by the Central Government. The appointment was co-terminus with the scheme which was to end in the year 1986, however the petitioner was sent on deputation on 05.02.1986 to the DRDA and thereafter has retired on 30.06.2013. The petitioner has never been confirmed in the Board of Revenue and as his appointment itself was under temporary scheme, thus the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief(s).
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of records what is apparent is that the petitioner had been sent on deputation to DRDA vide order dated 05.02.1986. As the DRDA was having the age of superannuation of 58 years, as such the petitioner was retired on 30.06.2013. In the fitness of things he should have been returned back to his parent department i.e. the Board of Revenue. However neither the petitioner was sent back to the Board of Revenue nor any dues as would fall due in the Board of Revenue have been paid to the petitioner and thus the relief has been sought for payment of salary to the petitioner. A question would be that when the very appointment of the petitioner in the Board of Revenue was on temporary basis as to how he could be sent on deputation and having been sent on deputation as to why he would not return back to the parent department i.e. the Board of Revenue.
All these questions are to be considered and decided by the competent authority himself i.e. the Board of Revenue, as such the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 2 to look into the grievances of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned and speaking order taking in to consideration the observations made hereinabove. Let such an order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 J.K. Dinkar