Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Management Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan vs Mohammad Israil And Others on 15 March, 2012

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                    LPA No. 354 of 2012 (O&M)

                                    Date of Decision: March 15, 2012

Management Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan,
Meo High School, Nuh,Distt.Mewat
                                                       ...Appellant

                              Versus

Mohammad Israil and others

                                                       ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present:    Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
            for the appellant.
                   ..

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The management of Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan, Meo High School, Nuh has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.9507 of 2008) filed by respondent No.1 challenging the order of his compulsory retirement, has been allowed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order.

The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the grounds on which respondent No.1, who was working as Social Studies Master in the school, was compulsorily retired and the decisions of this Court in A.S.I. Radhey Shyam vs. Union of India and others reported as 2001(2) RSJ 172, S.B. Panihar vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited reported as 2001 (2) RSJ 240 and Mohan Lal Vohra vs. State of Haryana reported as 1992(2) 642, has come to the conclusion that the LPA No. 354 of 2012 (O&M) -2- reasons on which respondent No.1 was compulsorily retired, are stigmatic and passed without any enquiry, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement could not be sustained.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the factual position with regard to the grounds on which respondent No.1 was compulsorily retired. After going through those grounds, we are of the opinion that the same are stigmatic and are required to be established in the enquiry, which has not been conducted before passing the order of compulsory retirement of respondent No.1. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

Dismissed.



                                            (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
                                                     JUDGE


March 15, 2012                                    ( T. P. S. MANN )
vkg                                                      JUDGE