Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Surjeet Singh vs State Of J&K And Another on 27 December, 2019
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 4118/2019,
CM(8489/2019)
Surjeet Singh
...Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate
v/s
State of J&K and another
...Respondent(s)
Through :-Mr. K.D.S.Kotwal, Dy.AG for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI for-5 and 6.
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT(ORAL)
1. Notice to the respondents. Mr. K.D.S.Kotwal, Dy.AG waives notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI waives notice on behalf of respondents No.5 and 6.
2. Through the medium of instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned communication dated 13.09.2019 whereby the respondent No.5 has returned the pension case of the petitioner to respondent Nos. 2 and 4 on the premises that the petitioner has taken the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 and all such orders have been rescinded vide Govt. Order No.227-PW(Hyd) of 2010 dated 06.06.2010 was unwarranted and deserves to be quashed as the same has been so issued without checking the service book of the petitioner as the said benefit was no longer available to the petitioner and stands withdrawn, i.e., benefit of SRO 149 of 1973, and the department having already made recovery of the amount paid in this regard from Page 2 of 3 WP(C) No. 4118/2019 the salary of the petitioner as is also evident from the service record of the petitioner. It is further prayed that the respondents may be commanded to forthwith settle and release all the retiral benefits including the gratuity and service pension in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation and to pay the arrears of pension while taking into consideration Article 242 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 and the law laid down in this regard.
3. Petitioner retired from service in June, 2019. The pensionary and other retiral benefits have not been paid to him on the alleged ground that he has taken some benefits under SRO 149. It is stated that the benefits, which were earlier obtained by the petitioner under the aforesaid SRO have since been returned and, therefore, such an objection cannot be used for the purposes of withholding the pensionary benefits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are under legal obligation to settle the pension case of the petitioner as per the last pay drawn by him under Article 242 of CSR governing the subject and as per the mandate, the average emoluments in respect of a government servant are to be taken into consideration on the basis of last ten months pay and pension and other benefits are to be fixed accordingly. He further contends that in similar cases, the respondents have considered, but, ignored the same in case of the petitioner. Hence this petition on the grounds taken in it.
5. The petitioner while placing reliance on Article 242 of CSR Volume-
1, submits that he has already represented in this regard to respondent Page 3 of 3 WP(C) No. 4118/2019 Nos.5 and 6, but, all in vain. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied if respondent Nos.5 and 6 are called upon to take a decision on his representation in light of the Article 242 of CSR Volume-1 and in view of other similar cases, which have already been settled by respondent Nos.5 and 6 within certain timeframe to which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are not averse to this proposition, except for their assertions that the respondents be directed to do the needful in terms of the law and the rules governing the field. Their statements are taken on record.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation supported by relevant documents including the judgment, if any, passed in similar cases and implemented by respondent Nos.5 and 6 within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 5 and 6 within a period of six weeks thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly, along with connected CM(s), if any.
(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu 27.12.2019 'Madan-PS' Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No. MADAN LAL VERMA 2020.01.01 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document