Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ajay Sharma vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 30 August, 2024
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1306/2023
Ajay Sharma .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
30.08.2024
01. Petitioner, by way of this petition, seeks a direction to the respondent
No. 4 to refix the pension afresh on the analogy of the reference
made in the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K
and Ladakh at Srinagar and the Hon'ble Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jammu and the amount due be released in favour of the
petitioner along with interest @18 % p.a.
02. The petitioner has retired from the Power Development Department,
of the J&K Government, now Power Development Corporation, on
31.05.2021. The pension case of the petitioner was forwarded by the
parent department (respondent No. 3) to respondent No. 4. In
response, respondent No. 4 issued communication No. PNR-
1/A&E/2021-22 dated 19.01.2022, seeking clarification regarding
implementation of SRO 149 of 1973, on the ground that some
dispute with regard to the same is pending in Hon'ble Apex Court.
03. The petitioner submits that his pay was fixed in terms of SRO 149 of
1973, as was done in the case of similarly situated employees of the
respondent Department. It has been submitted that the parent
department of the petitioner has fixed his pay and the same has been
confirmed by the Government in terms of order No. 309-PDD of
1995 dated 30.08.1995 and entry of SRO 149 of 1973 stands
confirmed vide the aforesaid Government Order. In this regard, the
entry has been recorded in the service book of the petitioner which
was forwarded to the office of respondent No. 4 for release of
pension as per the grade and scale of pay in which the petitioner was
drawing his salary at the time of his retirement. It has also been
contended that respondent No. 4 has returned the pension case of the
petitioner on flimsy grounds by stating that a case pertaining to SRO
149 is subjudice before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner
submits that he has nothing to do with the said case and is not, in any
manner, connected with the case pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
04. Despite availing number of opportunities, respondent Nos. 1 to 4
have not filed their reply.
05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
06. It is not disputed that the petitioner's pay was fixed by the parent
department in accordance with the pay scale provided in SRO 149 of
1973, whereby, revision of pay scales has taken place. It is not the
case of the respondents that any litigation is pending as regards the
fixation of pay of the petitioner in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or for
that matter in any other Court. In the communication dated
19.01.2022, respondent No. 4 has refused to approve the pay fixation
made by the parent department of the petitioner on the ground that
there is some ongoing litigation relating to SRO 149 of 1973 in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, and has asked the parent department of the
petitioner to forward the pension case of the petitioner without
considering the benefits of SRO 149 of 1973.
07. The respondent No. 4 cannot refuse to authorize the pension of an
employee on the basis of the pay fixed by his/her parent department,
as SRO 149 of 1973 has not been declared as not in accordance with
law. It is not the case of respondent No.5 that any such declaration
has been made by the Supreme Court as yet, therefore, it is not open
to respondent No. 4 to ask the parent department of the petitioner to
ignore the benefits granted to him in terms of SRO 149 of 1973.
08. Mere pendency of a matter relating to grant of benefit under SRO
149 of 1973 to an employee of the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir cannot have any effect upon the pensionary benefits of the
petitioner. Therefore, inaction of respondent No. 5 in not authorizing
pension of the petitioner in accordance with the recommendation
made by his parent department cannot be justified in law. A similar
view has been taken by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases
of Manzoor Ahmad Shah vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (WP(C)
No.2313/2021 decided on 27.05.2022) and Abdul Majeed Lone vs.
State of J&K & Ors. (SWP No.754/2014 decided on 13.10.2017)
and Farooq Ahmad Zargar Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. (WP(C) No.
1261/2023 decided on 24.07.2024) and others.
09. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is
allowed and respondent No. 4 is directed not to give effect to the
communication dated 19.01.2022. It is further directed that
respondent No. 4 shall fix and authorize pension as well as post
retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the pay fixed in
his favour by his parent department.
10. Disposed of.
(SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE
Jammu:
30.08.2024
Vishal
