Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION(C) NO. 355 OF 2014

Shakti Kumar Gupta ..Petitioner versus

State of Jammu and Kashmir and another ..Respondents J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. The  petitioner  was  selected  by  the  Jammu  and  Kashmir  Public  Service  Commission  for  appointment  to  the  Kashmir  Civil  Service (Judicial) on 5.1.1987.  He joined as Munsif (-cum-Judicial  Magistrate, First Class) at Basohli in District Kathua.  He was  thereafter promoted as a Subordinate Judge (-cum- Chief Judicial  Magistrate) on 18.11.1996.  And thereafter, as an adhoc District &  Sessions Judge on 8.8.2002.  While in the cadre of District &  Sessions Judge, he was placed in the selection grade on 15.06.2011. 2. For  the  controversy  in  hand,  some  of  the  Annual  Confidential Reports recorded in respect of work and conduct of the  petitioner  are  important.   A  brief  summary  thereof  is  recorded  hereunder: Sl.No. Annual Confidential Reports Remarks

for the period 01. 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 Good 02. 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 Average 03. 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2004 Average 04. 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005 Good 05. 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 Very Good 06. 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008 Very Good 07. 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 Average 3. So  far  as  the  present  controversy  is  concerned,  it

Page 2

2

pertains  to  the  compulsory  retirement  of  the  petitioner.  Compulsory retirement is regulated under the provisions of Higher  Judicial  Service  Rules,  2009  (issued  vide  SRO  339,  dated  27.10.2009,  Law  Department).   Rule  24  of  the  aforesaid  rules  pertains to the subject of premature retirement.  The same is being  extracted hereunder:

“24. Premature retirement The High Court shall assess and evaluate the record  of the members of the service for his/her continued  utility before he/she attains the age of 50 years,  55 years and 58 years by following the procedure  for compulsory retirement under the service rules  applicable to him/her and if he/she is not found  fit and eligible he/she will compulsorily retire on  his/her attaining the age of 50 years, 55 years and  58 years, as the case may be.”

 4. A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that it is open  to the High Court to evaluate the record of a judicial officer,  before he attains the ages of 50, 55 and 58 years, for ordering his  premature retirement.  In evaluating the record of the concerned  judicial officer, the High Court is to follow the procedure for  compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him. In  the event of a judicial officer being found unfit to continue in  service, it is open to the High Court to prematurely retire him, on  attaining the ages of 50,55 and 58 years. 5. In conjunction with the rule of premature retirement, it  is  also  essential  for  us  to  refer  to  the  criteria/norms  for  continuity in service after the ages of 50,55 and 58 years.  The  criteria/norms were adopted by a resolution of the Full Court of  the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 3.6.2013.  Some parts of the  resolution are relevant for the present controversy, and are being

Page 3

3

extracted hereunder: “While  considering  the  cases  of  the  Judicial  Officers for their continued utility in service at  50, 55 and 58 years of age in terms of the judgment  of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges  Association Vs. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2493 and  (2011)  10  SCC.  I,  the  following  criteria/norms  shall be taken into account by the High Court in  its administrative capacity. A.Assessment Standards: Following  are  the  factors  to  be  taken  into  consideration  individually/collectively  to  assess  the officer. 1.Over all past service record of the Officer shall  be  examined  and  considered  with  emphasis  on  the  last 5 years' record to assess his potential for  continued utility in the service beyond 50,55 and  58 years. 2.The  quality  of  the  judgments  delivered  by  the  officer, whether or not assailed before the High  Court, in suits, appeals, Session cases, Revisions  and other proceedings during the past ten years of  his service tenure. The quality of judgments will  be determined by its content, the legal acumen it  reveals,  the  nature  of  approach  adopted,  the  language  employed  and  the  results  achieved  etc.  etc. 3.Rate of disposal of the case by the officer in  the light of the separate criteria prescribed by  the High Court for this purpose. 4.Material reflecting the character of the officer,  including the complaints, enquiries and vigilance  reports  lodged  against  him.  The  fact  that  the  officer was superseded in the last promotion shall  also be taken into consideration. B.Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.Rs.) 1.General a) The ACRs for the last five years should be taken  into account. b)  If  the  other  record  of  the  officer  is  at  Variance with ACRs. Provided, however, that if the ACR of the officer  for  a  particular  year  has  not  been  recorded  or

Page 4

4

approved by the High Court, as can be the situation  in case of a deputationist, the other record of the  officer  for  that  year  would  be  considered  for  rating him. 2.Special Considerations: A Judicial Officer shall be permitted to continue  beyond 50, 55 and 58 years of age if he fulfills  the following conditions: i) The Officer has on the basis of the prescribed  criteria earned seventy five per cent or more ('A'  Grading) of his total ACR entries in 'Very Good' or  'Good' gradings. ii) If the officer has not earned any adverse or  average entry in his ACRs after his last promotion. C. Other relevant factors: Besides  above  standard  and  recording  of  ACR,  following factors shall also be  taken into account  while  evaluating  all  round  potential  of  the  officer: i).  His  integrity,  honesty  and  judicial  conduct  shall  be  kept  in  view  and  utmost  importance  be  attached; ii).  His  relations  with  the  Bar  and  his  administrative capacity should also be considered; iii). His dealing with the finance shall also be  taken into account while evaluating the all round  potential of the officer; iv). The ACRs shall not constitute the sole guiding  factor but shall be given due weightage along with  other equally relevant factors; v).  The  institutional  integrity  being  in  larger  public  interest  is  the  uppermost  and  shall  be  preferred to individual interest.

These are guidelines for internal use of the High  Court. However, it would not limit the power of the  High  Court  vested  by  Article  235  of  the  Constitution of India read with Article 104 of the  J&K Constitution.”

It  is  therefore  apparent,  that  Rule  24  has  to  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  Resolution  dated  3.6.2013,  in  order  to

Page 5

5

determine, whether or not a judicial officer should be prematurely  retired. 6. Before  we  venture  to  deal  with  the  evaluation  of  the  record of the petitioner in terms of the Instructions/Resolution  dated 3.6.2013, it is imperative for us to notice, that the  afore- stated Resolution constituted the basis for determining the retain- ability of the petitioner in service.  In the Resolution dated  3.6.2013, emphasis was placed on the immediately preceding five  years  record,  to  assess  the  potentiality  and  utility  of  the  employee  under  consideration.  Likewise,  the  Instruction  dated  3.6.2013,  postulated  in  addition  to  the  consideration  of  the  quality of his judgments, his institutional integrity in larger  public interest, his judicial conduct, his administrative capacity,  the rate of his disposal of cases, the character of the officer,  the complaints, the  enquiries and the vigilance reports lodged  against  him,  his  dealing  with  financial  matters,  and  the  like.  Since the issue of premature retirement of the petitioner came up  for consideration in the year 2013, mainly the annual confidential  reports  for  the  years  2008  to  2012  were  to  be  taken  into  consideration.   In  the  summary,  extracted  hereinabove,  it  is  apparent,  that  for  the  period  from  1.1.2008  to  31.12.2008,  the  petitioner  was  assessed  as  “Very  Good”,  whereas  for  the  period  2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009, he was assessed as “Average”.  In terms of  the Resolution dated 3.6.2013 since no annual confidential report  was recorded after the year 2009, assessment made for the previous  year, i.e., for the year 2009   was taken into consideration as the  assessment for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.  It is therefore,

Page 6

6

that the High Court arrived at the conclusion, that the work and  conduct  of  the  petitioner  was  merely  “Average”,  as  his  annual  confidential report from the year 2009 to the year 2012 reflected  him and having been graded as “Average”. 7. The first question that arises for our consideration, is  about the veracity of the Annual Confidential Report for the period  from  2.1.2009  to  31.12.2009.  In  fact,  this  was  the  main  and  emphatic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In  the above report, the learned Administrative Judge on 29.05.2013  recorded as under:

“Note: It is being brought on record that when this  Judicial Officer did not choose to send his self  Assessment  Report  for  year  2009  ending  31st  December,  2009,  Registry  was  informed  by  the  Secretary vide letter dated 06.10.2012 addressed to  R/G asking him to send his S.A.R. at the earliest  and in turn he was duly informed by Registry vide  Commn.  No.6474-80/GS  dated  11.10.2012  which  was  received  by  him  on  16.X.2012.  Despite  that  this  Judical  Officer  has  not  cared  to  respond/comply  with  the  direction.  Even  vide  Commn.  No.2507/GS  dated 24.5.2013, this Judicial Officer once again  has been asked by R/G to send his S.A.R. for the  year 2009, but till date no response has been sent  by  him.   Keeping  all  these  aspects  into  consideration, I am awarding his A.C.R. as AVERAGE  only.

Sd/- Administrative Judge

  29.5.013”       

It would be pertinent to mention, that a Annual Confidential Report  evaluates a judicial officer on a variety of aspects.  To highlight  the subjects on which an officer is assessed, it is considered just  and appropriate to extract hereunder  relevant  parts of the annual  confidential report of the petitioner, for the period from 2.1.2009  to 31.12.2009.  This would also permit a closer examination of the

Page 7

7

above report:

1. Knowledge of Law & Procedure Since  Self  Assessment  Report  has  not  been  sent  by  the  Judicial  Officer,  I  cannot  comment upon it

2. Impression  during  inspection  (how he conducts the Court, his  behaviour  with  advocates  and  litigants,  his  clarity  in  understanding  and  appreciating  the arguments adjudged from his  interaction  with  advocates  during arguments. Whether he is  able  to  dictate  in  Court,  at  least  in  miscellaneous  applications).

________

3. Areas in which he was counselled  during inspection

_________

4. Is he industrious and prompt in  the disposal of cases and has be  coped  effectively  with  heavy  work?

Average

5. Is he/she an efficient Judicial  Officer  

–do-

6. What  is  his/her  reputation  for  honesty,  integrity  and  impartiality. Whether Very Good,  Average,  Doubtful,  bad  or  positively lacking.  

Average

7. Remarks  about  his/her  attitude  towards  his  superiors,  subordinates and colleagues.

_________

8. Behaviour towards members of the  Bar and the Public.

_________

9. Remarks  about  Administrative  capability.

_________

10. How  is  his/her  reputation  for  private life/character and does  it tend to lower him/her in the  estimation of public members of  Bar  and  adversely  affect  the  discharge  of  his/her  judicial  functions?

__________

11. What  degree  of  control  does  he/she  exercise  over  the  files  in the matter of :

__________

Page 8

8

a) Proper fixation of cause list __________ b)  Avoidance  of  unnecessary  adjournments c) Disposal of old cases

12. Is he/she punctual in coming to  the  office  and  sitting  in  the  court?

__________

13. Did  any  incident/incidents,  involving  him/her  occurred  during  the  year  which  warrants  or  led  to,  recording  of  commendatory/critical  remarks  about  his/her  conduct/behaviour  in  relation  to  such  incident/incidents?

14. Is  his  supervision  and  distribution of business among,  and  his  control  over  the  Subordinate Courts Good?

__________

15. Are  his  judgments  and  orders  well  written  and  clearly  expressed?

No comments as SAR not sent

16. Grading of Judgments A-Outstanding B-Very Good C-Good D-Average E-Below Average

Average

17. Other remarks, if any __________

18. Overall  assessment  as  per  the  grading given below: A-Outstanding B-Very Good C-Good D-Satisfactory E- Average F-Poor

Average

19. Convey the following remarks to  the  Officer,  for  his  reply/explanation

__________

Most of the columns in the annual confidential report were left  blank.  It is obvious, that the petitioner was not assessed for the

Page 9

9

columns  left  blank.   In  some  columns,  the  Administrative  Judge  expressly mentioned, that it was not possible to record the remarks  on  account  of  the  petitioner  not  having  submitted  his  “self- assessment  report”.  In  five  of  the  columns,  the  Administrative  Judge recorded the assessment as “Average”.  8. The  question  that  arises  for  our  consideration  is,  whether the petitioner can be deemed to have been graded for the  period  from  2.1.2009  to  31.12.2009  as  “Average”.   It  is  not  possible for us to accept the determination of the High Court, that  the aforesaid annual confidential report should be treated as an  assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner.  We are  satisfied in concluding, that no assessment whatsoever was made at  the hands of the Administrative Judge, insofar as the above annual  confidential report is concerned.  The same was recorded, on the  apparent grouse, that the petitioner had not submitted his “self- assessment  report”.   Even  though,  it  was  possible  for  the  Administrative Judge to have filled up a number of columns based on  the assessment of the judgments, and the record available to him  otherwise, yet merely on account of the fact that the petitioner  had not submitted his “self-assessment report”,  the Administrative  Judge recorded the “Average” report.  The above report being not a  truthful assessment of the various constituents of the judicial  officer's work and conduct, it could certainly not be taken as an  assessment of his work for the period from 2.1.2009 to 31.12.2009.  It may be mentioned illustratively, that on the basis of the record  accessible and available to the High Court, it was not at all  difficult  to  evaluate  the  petitioner  (or  for  that  matter  any

Page 10

10

judicial officer) in respect of his knowledge of law and procedure,  about impressions during inspection (how he conducts the Court, how  he  behaves  with  advocates  and  litigants,  his  clarity  and  understanding of the submissions made at the bar, and whether he is  able to dictate from the dias – at least miscellaneous orders),  whether he is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases, whether  he is an efficient judicial officer.  Without any inputs which a  judicial officer would provide in a “self-assessment report”, the  Administrative  Judge  can  also  record  his  views  on  the  judicial  officer's reputation for honesty, integrity and impartiality, and  his assessment about the officers attitude towards his superiors,  subordinates and colleague, as well as, behaviour toward members of  the Bar and public, and also, areas on which the judicial officer  had been counselled.  The “self-assessment report” would also not  be necessary, while expressing the judicial officers reputation in  his private life or his character in his private life, or for that  matter, the estimation of the judicial officer in the perception of  members of the Bar and the public.  It is therefore apparent, that  most of the columns of the proforma prescribed for recording the  annual confidential report, could have been filled up, without any  difficulty, in absence of the “self-assessment report”.  The annual  confidential report being bereft of any  assessment of the work and  conduct  of  the  petitioner  for  the  period  from  2.1.2009  to  31.12.2009, the same is liable to be treated as no report, for all  intents and purposes.  In view of the above conclusion, it is also  imperative  for  us  to  further  hold,  that  treating  the  work  and  conduct of the petitioner as “Average” for the years 2010, 2011 and

Page 11

11

2012 on the basis of the report for the year 2009 is therefore,  also not sustainable in law. 9. The  further  question,  that  still  remains  for  our  determination is, whether in the absence of the annual confidential  report for the year 2009, the order of premature retirement of the  petitioner, would remain sustainable in law. It was the contention  of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the order of  premature  retirement  of  the  petitioner,  was  based  on  the  petitioner's work and conduct, for which reliance was mainly placed  on the “Average” report for the year 2009, the impugned order was  liable  to  be  set  aside,  after  the  said  report  is  held  to  be  unsustainable in law. 10. Insofar  as  the  issue  of  premature  retirement  of  the  petitioner is concerned, it is essential to notice, that the same  was considered in the background of complaints made against him, by  members of the Bar, more particularly, Advocates practicing in the  District Consumer Forum, Srinagar, followed by another complaint,  by the elected office bearers of the Bar Association, Srinagar, who  had  met  the  Chief  Justice,  specially  in  connection  with  their  grievances and allegations against the petitioner.  There was also  a complaint at the hands of one Shyam Lal. In furtherance of the  complaint made by the aforesaid Shyam Lal, the Chief Justice of the  Jammu and Kashmir High Court had directed the Registrar(Vigilance)  of  the  Jammu  and  Kashmir  High  Court,  to  conduct  a  preliminary  enquiry. There  were also other complaints which were shown to us,  from the original record.  One of the complaints was at the hands  of Nissar Ahamd Khan, who had alleged, that the petitioner had

Page 12

12

required him to have his personal laptop of HP brand repaired.  The  complainant  accordingly  had  got  it  repaired  from   “New  A.S.  Combines (Regd.)”, an authorised HP service station, for which he  had paid Rs.6,500/-, which the petitioner refused to reimburse.  There were also complaints in respect of disproportionate assets  held by the petitioner.  We are not verifying the veracity of these  complaints. We are merely noticing, that complaints were available  in the record of the High Court, which could have been, and indeed  must have been, taken into consideration, while taking the decision  to prematurely retire the petitioner. 11. In  conjunction  with  the  factual  position  noticed  hereinabove, it is necessary to record, that the Registrar General  of the High Court had telephonically required the petitioner on  10.09.2012 to meet the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High  Court, at his residence, on 11.09.2012 at 6.00 p.m.  The record  also reveals, that the petitioner had met with the Chief Justice on  the  appointed  day  and  time,  and  was  counselled  by  the  Chief  Justice,  with  reference  to  the  complaints  received  by  the  High  Court, against the petitioner. 12. The decision to prematurely retire the petitioner, came  up  for  consideration  before  the  Full  Court  on  3.6.2013.   The  minutes of the Full Court meeting have been placed on the record of  this  case,  along  with  the  supplementary  affidavit  filed  by  the  petitioner.  A  perusal  thereof  reveals,  that  the  Administrative  Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 21/29.05.2013  had examined the past record, annual confidential reports, work  done statements, and other relevant record/material pertaining to

Page 13

13

the petitioner, and had opined that he had lost his utility, and  had  become  deadwood.   The  Administrative  Committee  accordingly  recommended to the Full Court, that the petitioner was not fit to  continue as District and Sessions Judge, after the age of 55 years.  Based  on  the  aforesaid  recommendation  of  the  Administrative  Committee, the Full Court discussed the matter on 3.6.2013, and  arrived  at  its  conclusion  based  on  the  service  record  of  the  officer.  Based on his “Average” report for the year 2009, and in  conjunction  with  the  Full  Court  Resolution  dated  3.6.2013,  his  annual confidential reports for the years 2009 to 2012 were also  treated as “Average”.  As such, he was not considered suitable, to  be continued in service. Since we have already declared the annual  confidential report for the year 2009, as no report in the eyes of  law,  and  as  such,  nonest;  none  of  the  said  reports  of  the  petitioner (of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) could have been taken  into  consideration  for  the  purpose  of  passing  the  order  of  premature retirement. 13. In addition to the above, the Full Court in its meeting  dated 3.6.2013 recorded as under:

“The Full Court has echoed the feeling that the  officer is incorrigible and it is not in the public  interest  to  continue  him  in  service  as  credible  complaints with regard to his judicial conduct keep  pouring in.  The officer has lost utility and has  become deadwood.”    

It  is  apparent,  that  in  addition  to  the  annual  confidential  reports, it was concluded that the petitioner was incorrigible, and  that, it was not in public interest to continue him in service.  It  was  also  recorded,  that  credible  complaints  with  regard  to  his

Page 14

14

judicial work were being received periodically.  On the basis of  the above consideration, it was felt that the officer had lost his  utility,  and  had  become  deadwood.   Based  on  the  aforesaid  determination, the Full Court accepted the recommendation of the  Administrative Committee on 11.6.2013.  The Full Court's decision  to  prematurely  retire  the  petitioner,  was  forwarded  to  the  Government for approval.  On 7.10.2013, the Cabinet approved the  recommendations made by the High Court.  On 11.1.2014, the Governor  of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, accorded his approval, to the  premature retirement of the petitioner.  It is therefore, that the  petitioner was issued an order dated 24.1.2014, intimating him of  his premature retirement on attaining the age of 55 years. 14. Having  given  our  thoughtful  consideration,  to  the  consideration of the Full Court, in respect of material other than  the annual confidential report for the year 2009 (and of the years  2010  to  2012),  we  are  of  the  view,  that  there  was  sufficient  material justifying the premature retirement of the petitioner in  terms of Rule 24, extracted hereinabove, specially when the same is  read in conjunction with the Full Court resolution dated 3.6.2013.  It may be noted that there cannot be concrete evidence in respect  of allegations pertaining to integrity. If the competent authority  arrives at a justifiable conclusion, on the basis of the record  available in connection therewith, that itself would be sufficient  to order the premature retirement of the concerned individual. 15. Herein  it  is  apparent,  that  based  on  the  complaints  received  against  the  petitioner,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  High  Court  of  Jammu  and  Kashmair,  afforded  him  an  audience  on

Page 15

15

11.09.2012.  The  Chief  Justice  counselled  the  petitioner,  with  reference  to  the  complaints  received  against  him.  Few  of  the  complaints received against the petitioner, have been referred to  above.  The  complaints  expressed  aspersions  on  the  petitioner's  financial  dealings,  and  also,  in  respect  of  the  petitioner's  conduct during court proceedings.  The petitioner's conduct was  adversely commended upon by the members of the Bar of the District  Consumer Forum, Srinagar, and by the Bar Association, Srinagar.   A  clear reflection that his behaviour with advocates and members of  the Bar Association was improfessional and/or indiscreet.  There  were vigilance enquiries pending against the petitioner. Besides  all this, it is necessary to notice, that even though we have set  aside the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year  2009,  since  it  was  based  on  the  non-submission  of  the  “self- assessment report” by the petitioner, it is necessary to record,  that  the  non-submission  of  the  “self-assessment  report”  by  the  petitioner, also reveals his behaviour and temperament. A perusal  of the note of the Administrative Judge dated 29.5.2013 (extracted  above) reveals, that the officer was adamant about not submitting  the “self-assessment report”.  The stand of the petitioner before  us was, that the “self-assessment report”, was to be furnished to  the District Judge, who would then forward it to the Administrative  Judge.  This position adopted by the petitioner cannot be accepted,  in view of the clear instructions circulated by the High Court of  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  to  all  Additional  District  Judge  Courts,  on  4.9.1995.  Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the above circular are relevant  and are being extracted below:

Page 16

16

“3. The self assessment form should be completed  by the Officer reported upon and submitted by him  to his District Judge, along with the 12 months'  statements of the work done for the whole year,  before  28th February  in  the  year  following  the  period of reporting. 4. In case the Officer reported upon happens to  be  Addl.  District  Judge/District  Judge  the  self  assessment form, duly completed in all respects,  along with the 12 monthly statements of the work  done for the whole year, shall be submitted by the  officer reported upon to the Private Secretary of  the Administrative Judge concerned/Registrar, High  Court before 28th February of the year following the  period of reporting.”   

Paragraph 4 shows, that the position adopted by the petitioner is  patently  incorrect.   That  apart,  the  petitioner  was  repeatedly  addressed letters by the Administrative Judge (dated, 11.10.2012  and 24.5.2013) as is apparent from the note dated 29.5.2013, but  the petitioner remained stead fast in his resolve not to furnish  the “self-assessment report” to the Administrative Judge.  This  also  reveals  his  behaviour,  which  has  relevance  to  the  annual  confidential report – specially the aspects referable to all serial  nos. 7,9 and 13, i.e., his attitue towards his superiors.  All this  was also duly concerned, when the petitioner was recommended by the  Administrative Committee for premature retirement on 21/23.5.2013.  The matter was thereafter considered by the Full Court of the High  Court.   On  each  of  the  aforesaid  considerations,  the  issue  of  incorrigibility of the petitioner was sought to be reiterated. 16. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that  the determination recorded in the minutes of the Full Court on  3.6.2013 (even if we were to exclude the consideration based on the

Page 17

17

annual confidential report for the year 2009), were sufficient to  justify the order of premature retirement of the petitioner. We  therefore hereby uphold the order of premature retirement of the  petitioner dated 3.6.2013/24.1.2014. 17. During the course of hearing, we were informed by the  learned counsel for the petitioner, that the retiral benefits of  the  petitioner,  had  not  yet  been  released  to  him.   If  the  petitioner has submitted all papers connected to his pension, we  direct the High Court to process and pay the petitioner all his  retiral benefits within four months. In case, the petitioner has  not submitted his pension papers, he may do so within two weeks  from today, in which eventuality, he shall be released all his  retiral benefits, within four months from the date of submission of  all his pension papers. 18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

…....................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …....................J. DECEMBER 11, 2015. [R. BANUMATHI]  

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.301               COURT NO.3               SECTION X                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil)  No(s).  355/2014 SHAKTI KUMAR GUPTA                                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF J & K & ANR.                              Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for stay and office report) Date : 11/12/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.                    Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg,Adv.                    Mr. Pallav Mongia, Adv.   For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Sangal,Adv.                    Ms. Srijana, Adv.     

Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv.

         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  writ  petition  stands  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file.

(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla)  Court Master      AR-cum-PS