Jammu Municipal Corporation And ... vs Rakhil Gill And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1788 j&K

                                                                      Sr. No. 11



      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: LPA No. 212 of 2018

Jammu Municipal Corporation and another                         .....Appellant (s)

                               Through :- Sh. S S Nanda, Sr. AAG
                         v/s

Rakhil Gill and others                                         .....Respondent(s)
                               Through :- Sh. C M Koul, Senior Advocate with
                                          Sh. A R Bhat, Advocate.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

1. Heard Sh. S. S. Nanda, learned Senior AAG appearing for the

appellants and Sh. C M Koul, Senior counsel assisted by Sh. A R Bhat, learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) and another have preferred

this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the Writ

Court allowing SWP No. 2768/2013, Rakhil Gill and others v. State of J&K

and others.

3. The facts, as revealed from the impugned judgment, establish that

one Robert Kalyan, husband of the petitioner-Rakhil Gill, who was working as

a Cashier in JMC was put under suspension vide order dated 14.01.1993. He

retired on 31.05.2006. During his tenure departmental enquiry was not

completed and he was not re-instated with the result he received only 50 per

cent of the subsistence allowance. On his death, his wife filed writ petition

seeking full salary for the period of suspension of her husband i.e. from

14.01.1993 till his retirement on 31.05.2006 with interest @ 12 per cent per

annum.

4. The Writ Court, relying upon Regulation 108-BB of the J&K Civil

Services Regulations, 1956, came to the conclusion that the period between the

date of suspension and the date of death of an employee shall be treated as duty

for all purposes and that an employee shall be entitled to full pay and

allowance for that period. Accordingly, directions were issued for the payment

of full salary to the petitioners with a consolidated lump-sum of ₹1,00,000/- in

lieu of the interest.

5. The aforesaid judgment and order is under challenge but in the

meantime, the JMC appears to have accepted the judgment. Moreover, as no

punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner's husband and he retired/died

while in service, he would be treated to be in service entitled to full salary.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in

the appeal and the same is dismissed with direction to the JMC to make

payment as directed by the writ court to the petitioners therein without let or

hindrance, within a period of two months from today or alternatively, the

amount may be deposited before the Registrar Judicial of this court for

payment to the wife of the deceased.

7. In the event, the amount is not so paid/deposited, the respondents

herein would be at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of this court by

moving an application, whereupon an appropriate action shall be taken against

the JMC.

                          (JAVED IQBAL WANI)             (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                    JUDGE                  CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
30.12.2021
Raj Kumar