Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Amarjit Singh And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 7 May, 2025
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Sr. No. 10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No:- WP(C) No. 1914/2024
CM No. 4671/2024
Amarjit Singh and Ors. .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Shivani Jalali, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K and Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG
Mr. Danish Butt, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
07.05.2025
1. Upon coming of the instant petition for consideration today,
learned counsel for petitioners invited attention of this Court to order dated
30.04.2025, which reveals that learned counsel for petitioners had on the said
HIGH
O FofJthe
date, pointed out that the case A petitioners
M M U &stands covered by the judgments
COURT
K A S Benches
passed by the two Co-ordinate H M I R ofAthis
ND Court, as consequence whereof,
LADAKH
learned counsel for the petitioners came to be directed to furnish the copies of
the said judgments to the learned counsel for the respondents, who states that he
has received the copies of the same and admits that the case of the petitioners
herein is covered by the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court.
FACTS.
2. The petitioners in the instant petition claim to be retired employees
of J&K Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short,
"JAKFED"), which is stated to have been wound up by the Government and a
liquidator appointed thereto, for settling the claims, if any, thereof. It is stated
that the retiral benefits of the petitioners consisting of gratuity, earned leave, CP
fund including interest thereof as well as the amount of enhanced pay covered
under 6th Pay Commission even though having been worked out by the said
liquidator, is not paid to the petitioners ever since the petitioners though retired
prior to the winding up of the JAKFED, necessitating the filing of the instant
petition, in that, the petitioners have had been repeatedly and continuously
seeking release of their retrial benefits from the respondents.
3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents,
wherein it is being, inter-alia, stated that the payment of retiral benefits due to
the petitioners is not being denied, however, the payment thereof is stated to be
subject to the clearance from the Crime Branch, Jammu, which is investigating
an FIR registered against the petitioners.
It is further stated since the JAKFED stand wound up in terms of
order dated 14.10.2019 and consequently, dissolved and is currently under
liquidation while stating further that the respondents are not able to pay interest
to the petitioners on account of gratuity and leave encashment due to them,
worked out, assessed and reflected in the objections. Insofar the CP fund of the
petitioners is concerned, it is stated that JAKFED has had failed to deposit both
employees' and employers' share into the fund office, as such, no interest
thereon on the said amount is payable to the petitioners.
Insofar the payment of 6th pay commission claimed by the petitioners
is concerned, it is stated that the implementation of the 6 th pay commission was
carried out by the then Management of the JAKFED with effect from October,
2012, and as the JAKFED stands dissolved being presently under liquidation,
the liquidator has to assess the assets and liabilities of the JAKFED without any
administrative or financial powers pertaining to the service matters of the
employees.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making her submission in
line with the case set up in the instant petition, would pray for grant of the
relief prayed for and would simultaneously deny the plea of the counsel for
respondents that the petitioners are involved in an FIR registered against them,
whereas on the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents failed to
controvert the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners qua the
involvement of the petitioners in the FIR the petitioners are alleged to have
been involved.
5. Be that as it may, perusal of the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners passed in WP(C) no. 2823/ 2023 titled as
"Sanjeev Bhagat and Ors V/s UT of J&K and Ors." decided on 14.11.2024 as
well as passed in the case titled as, "Rajinder Abrol and Ors. V/s UT of J&K
and Ors." in WP(C) No. 3267/2023 decided on 01.01.2025, inasmuch as, the
case in hand, it is manifest that the controversy involved in the aforesaid
judgments, in essence, is identical to the controversy involved in the instant
petition.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the
instant petition is, as such, to be disposed of on the similar lines, on which, the
aforesaid petitions have been disposed of and is, accordingly, disposed of as
under: -
"The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of
the petitioner including the CP fund along with applicable
interests within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of this order and in the event, the same is not released within said
stipulated period, the amount due as on the expiry of the
aforesaid stipulated period, shall carry interest @ 6% per annum
till the amount is actually paid. In the aforesaid process, the
petitioner shall render assistance to the respondents, if so
required for the purpose of their claims."
7.. Disposed of, along with connected application(s).
(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Jammu
07.05.2025
Javid Iqbal
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
