Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Majeed Shah & Anr vs Zubair Ahmad & Ors on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.20
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CCP(S) No.609/2021
c/w
CCP(S) No.128/2021
ABDUL MAJEED SHAH & ANR. ...PETITIONER(s)
Through: Mr. L. A. Latief, Advocate.
Vs.
ZUBAIR AHMAD & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG-for R1 to R3.
Mr. Bashir Ahmad Zargar, Adv-for R4.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE
ORDER
19.02.2025
CCP(S) No.609/2021
1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition are seeking
implementation of order of the Writ Corut passed on 06.10.2021,
whereby the respondents have been directed to consider the case of the
petitioners for release of retiral/pensionary benefits in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383.
2. The respondents have filed the compliance report in which it has
been submitted that the claim of the petitioners has been considered,
whereafter provisional pension as provided under Rule 168-D of J&K
Civil Service Regulations has been sanctioned and released in favour of
both the petitioners vide PPO Nos.2221172899 and 2221158627
respectively. It has been further submitted that in terms of Rule 37(2)(v)
of J&K Civil Service Leave Rules, leave salary also stands sanctioned in
favour of both the petitioners. However, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
of the petitioners has not been released because of pendency of criminal
case against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the case
of two more employees, namely, Ghulam Mohammad Rather and
Mohammad Amin Dar, who were also involved in the same FIR, the
respondents have released all the pensionary benefits in their favour
pursuant to a similar judgment passed by the Writ Court.
4. In the face of the contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners, the respondents are directed to file an affidavit indicating
therein as to whether the aforenamed two persons are similarly situated
to the contempt petitioners and if so, why similar treatment has not been
given to the contempt petitioners. Needful be done by the next date of
hearing.
5. List again on 17th March, 2025.
CCP(S) No.128/2021:
1. The petitioners, through the medium of present contempt petition,
are seeking implementation of order of the Writ Corut passed on
10.01.2019, whereby the respondents have been directed to consider the
case of the petitioners for release of pensionary benefits in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383.
2. In the compliance report filed by the respondents, it has been
submitted that the pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 288 of the J&K
CSR have been released in favour of both the petitioners. However, the
period of their suspension has been treated as on leave.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
respondents have not implemented the order of the Writ Corut in its letter
and spirit as the suspension period of the petitioners has been treated as
4. I am afraid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot
be accepted because as per the judgment of the Writ Court, the
respondents were directed to consider the release of pensionary benefits
in favour of the petitioners which they have done. If the petitioners have
any grievance about the manner in which their absence from duty has
been treated by the respondents, they are at liberty to avail appropriate
remedy in this regard but determination of the said question cannot be a
subject matter of these proceedings. The contempt proceedings are,
therefore, closed and the contempt petition is disposed of. However,
record of this petition shall remain attached with CCP(S) No.609/2021
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
19.02.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
