Robkar vs Sanjeev Verma
2026 Latest Caselaw 795 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Robkar vs Sanjeev Verma on 16 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                          Serial No.72


       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

Case: ROBSW No.07/2024 in
      CPSW No.540/2018
      c/w
      CPSW No.540/2018

Robkar
                                                     .....Petitioner(s)

                   Through: Mr. Mohd. Rafiq Chak, Advocate

              Vs

Sanjeev Verma, Commissioner
Secretary to Government, General                 ..... Respondent(s)
Administrative Department,
Jammu
                                                                         Mr.




                   Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                             ORDER

16.02.2026

1. Fresh statement of facts/status report dated

05.02.2026 has been filed by the respondents. In the

said statement of facts, it has been submitted that a bill

in the amount of Rs.33,97,112/- was presented with

District Treasury, Reasi for payment of the said amount

to the petitioner. It is further indicated in the status

report that after deducting tax of Rs.7,82,378/-, the

amount of Rs.26,14,734/- stands credited to the bank

account of the petitioner.

2. This position is not being disputed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for

the petitioner has submitted that tax deducted at source

is on the higher side.

3. If that be the position, it is open to the petitioner to

project this aspect while filing his tax return and seek

refund of the amount.

4. So far as the amount of Rs.24,59,318/- which is stated

to have been deposited with the Registry of the Court is

concerned, a fresh report has been submitted by the

Registry wherein it has been stated that the said

amount has now been credited to the account of the

Registrar Judicial.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that

the respondents have already initiated a departmental

enquiry against the petitioner as there are allegations

that he has committed misappropriation of foodgrains

and, therefore, until the said enquiry is concluded, the

amount may not be released in favour of the petitioner.

6. In the above context, it is to be noted that only the

payment of provisional pension has been recommended

in favour of the petitioner. The other retiral benefits like

gratuity and leave salary are yet to be released in his

favour. Therefore, in case the respondents succeed in

proving the charges against the petitioner in the

departmental enquiry, which is pending against him,

they can always recover the outstanding amount from

the other pensionary benefits of the petitioner, but they

cannot withhold both the pensionary benefits as well as

the amount of salary which stand deposited with the

Registry of this Court.

7. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to transfer

the amount deposited in the bank account of the

petitioner which shall be furnished to the Registry by

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In view of the fact that judgment of the writ Court now

stands complied with, the rule is discharged and the

contempt proceedings are closed.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu 16.02.2026 Sneha