High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 J&K CK 0018

Amreen Magray (Dr.) vs State and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 30 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 JKJ 367

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Service Writ Petition (SWP) No. 1531 of 2010 and CMP No. 2419 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 346 words

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge

1.

A selection process was drawn on the request of Health Department by respondent No. 3 for selection and appointment of Dental Surgeons in

the year 2009. A selection list was prepared by respondent No. 3 and selected candidates came to be appointed on 30th of December, 2009.

Petitioner was not figuring in the said list, constraining her to approach the respondents to know about her fate. Ultimately respondent No. 3 made

a recommendation and petitioner came to be selected and appointed vide Govt. Order No. 44 HME of 2010 dated 20th of January, 2010, she

joined and accepted the said order. She has not questioned the said order till filing the writ petition in hand.

2.

It appears that rules came to be amended and all those persons who came to be appointed by the Govt. in various departments after 1st

January, 2010 are to be governed by the New Pension Scheme.

3.

The grievance projected by the petitioner is that she was entitled to appointment along with other candidates vide order dated 30th of

December, 2009, but due to lapses and mistakes committed by the respondents, she came to be selected and appointed later on i.e. 20th of

January, 2010, thus is to be governed by old pension scheme and not by the new scheme which is in vogue from 2010.

4.

Petitioner has accepted the order and is caught by law of estoppel. She has not questioned the said order before she joined and accepted the

same. She is appointee of January, 2010 and all those rules which were in force on 20th of January, 2010 are applicable on her service conditions.

She cannot seek application of a law in her case retrospectively from January 2009 when she was not in position, actually holding any post. It

further is, rendered insignificant in absence of any challenge thrown to her appointment order.

5.

In the given circumstances, the writ petition merits to be dismissed and is dismissed as such, along with all CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall

stand vacated.