Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rita Devi vs Accountant General (A&E), Jammu on 16 March, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 8892/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 8892/2020
Reserved on: - 19.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Rita Devi, Age 47years, W/o Sh. Late Sh. Som Dutt, R/o Village Prat,
Tehsil- Sunderbani, District - Rajouri.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Faiz-Ul-Arif-Fahmi)
Versus
1 State of Jammu and Kashmir Govt. through Commissioner/Secretary
Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
2 Accountant General, Shakti Nagar, Jamти.
3 Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Shakti Nagar, Jammu.
4.Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, Shakti Nagar, Jammu.
5.District Treasury Officer, Rajouri.
6. Treasury Officer, Sunderbani.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Akshay Sadotra)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 8892/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.1919/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.8892/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the submissions made hereinabove and those to be urged at the time of hearing, the Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to issue following writs:
i) WRIT OF MANDAMUS; - Commanding the respondents to release the arrears which were pending and were required to be issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner during the time bound promotions.
ii) WRIT OF MANDAMUS; Directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner pending before for time bound promotions. Or Any other writ order or direction HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 8892/2020 which your lordships may deems fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1919/2018 which was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 8892/2020. The petitioner seeks directions for release of arrears arising out of time bound promotions which, according to her, were due to her deceased husband during his service but were never properly granted by the respondents.
b) The petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Som Dutt, who had initially worked as a Daily Wager in the Accounts and Treasuries Department from 05.09.1983 to 30.01.1989. After rendering such service, his services were regularized with effect from 31.01.1989 and thereafter he continued to work in the department till his death.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 8892/2020
c) According to the petitioner, under the provisions governing time bound promotions, including the benefit of counting 50% of daily wage service in terms of SRO-311, the first time bound promotion of her husband ought to have been granted with effect from 01.06.1995. However, the department granted the said promotion only with effect from 01.02.1998, thereby denying him the benefit of earlier entitlement and consequential arrears.
d) Feeling aggrieved by the delayed grant of the first time bound promotion, the husband of the petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.10.2010 before the competent authority requesting that his case be reconsidered and that the benefit of time bound promotion be granted from the correct due date in accordance with SRO-311.
e) The matter was also taken up internally within the department.
The Treasury Officer, Sunderbani, vide communication dated 07.06.2011 addressed to the Joint Director, Accounts and Treasuries, recommended that sanction be accorded in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. However, no final decision was taken in favour of the employee.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 8892/2020
f) The petitioner further states that when the second time bound promotion became due with effect from 01.06.2004, the department again failed to grant the benefit from the due date. Instead, the second time bound promotion was granted notionally with effect from 01.02.2007 and monetarily only from 09.06.2011, thereby again depriving the employee of legitimate service benefits for several years.
g) It is further pleaded that the third time bound promotion became due to the husband of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2013 in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900, but the said promotion was never granted by the department. Before the matter could be settled, the husband of the petitioner passed away on 30.10.2014 while still in service.
h) After his death, pensionary benefits were released by the office of the Accountant General, J&K. However, according to the petitioner, the arrears arising out of the delayed first and second time bound promotions and the benefits of the third time bound promotion were never released. Due to this, the family pension received by the petitioner is allegedly lower than what would HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 8892/2020 have been admissible had the correct promotions and pay fixation been granted during the lifetime of her husband.
i) The petitioner submits that she repeatedly approached the authorities for redressal of her grievance. She submitted representations requesting release of the pending arrears and revision of pensionary benefits, including a representation dated 22.08.2016, but no effective action was taken by the respondents. Being left with no other remedy, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking appropriate directions for release of the arrears and consideration of her claim for time bound promotions of her deceased husband.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner and have filed a detailed reply opposing the relief sought. At the outset, it is submitted that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondents and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents contend that the claim raised by the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 8892/2020
b) It is further submitted that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches. According to the respondents, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of counting 50% of daily wage service for the purpose of time bound promotion, which according to her became due in the year 1995. The respondents argue that such a claim was never pursued in time and therefore cannot be entertained after a long lapse of years.
c) While replying to the specific averments of the petition, the respondents admit that the husband of the petitioner had initially worked as a daily wager and that his services were subsequently regularized on 31.01.1989. The respondents also admit that the first-time bound promotion was granted to him with effect from 01.02.1998. However, they deny the contention of the petitioner that the promotion ought to have been granted from 01.06.1995 by counting 50% of daily wage service.
d) With regard to the second time bound promotion, the respondents state that the same was granted notionally with effect from 01.02.2007 and monetarily with effect from 09.06.2011 in accordance with the applicable rules and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 8892/2020 procedures. They deny that any illegality or irregularity was committed in granting the said promotion.
e) The respondents further submit that the third time bound promotion of the husband of the petitioner became due on 01.06.2013. However, before the promotion order could be issued, the employee expired on 30.10.2014 and therefore no such promotion was granted during his lifetime.
f) It is also submitted that after the death of the employee, the petitioner approached respondent No.6 by submitting an application dated 22.08.2016 requesting release of certain pensionary benefits. The said request was forwarded through proper channel. The Treasury Officer forwarded the case to the District Treasury Officer vide letter dated 23.08.2016, who in turn submitted the matter to the Director, Accounts and Treasuries for consideration. However, the claim of the petitioner was examined by the competent authority and was rejected vide communication dated 29.11.2016 on the ground that the claim was highly belated and not legally sustainable.
g) The respondents therefore maintain that the claim raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the competent HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 8892/2020 authority and rejected. They reiterate that the petition suffers from delay and lacks merit, and therefore pray that the petition be dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1919/2018 which was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and later transferred to this Tribunal where it has been registered as T.A. No. 8892/2020. Through the present application, the petitioner seeks release of arrears arising out of time bound promotions which, according to her, were due to her deceased husband during his service but were not granted correctly by the respondents.
7. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Shri Som Dutt initially worked as a Daily Wager in the Accounts and Treasuries Department from 05.09.1983 to 30.01.1989. Thereafter, his services were regularized with effect from 31.01.1989 and he continued to serve the department till his death. According to the petitioner, the department failed to grant the time bound promotions to her husband HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 8892/2020 from the correct due dates as required under the applicable rules and Government orders. It is specifically pleaded that under SRO-311 the benefit of counting 50% of daily wage service was required to be taken into account for determining eligibility for time bound promotions. However, the first-time bound promotion of the petitioner's husband was granted only with effect from 01.02.1998 whereas the same ought to have been granted from 01.06.1995.
8. The petitioner further submits that the second time bound promotion which became due with effect from 01.06.2004 was not granted from the correct date. Instead, the department granted the said promotion notionally from 01.02.2007 and monetarily only from 09.06.2011. According to the petitioner, this again resulted in denial of legitimate service benefits to her husband. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third time bound promotion became due on 01.06.2013 but the same was never granted during the lifetime of her husband. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband passed away on 30.10.2014 and therefore the benefits which had accrued to him remained unsettled.
9. After the death of her husband, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and submitted representations requesting release HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 8892/2020 of the arrears and revision of pensionary benefits on the basis of the correct pay fixation that would have followed from the due promotions. However, the authorities did not grant the relief sought by her and ultimately rejected her claim primarily on the ground that the request was belated. Being left with no other effective remedy, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of the present petition which now stands transferred to this Tribunal.
10. The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petition suffers from delay and laches. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot seek counting of daily wage service for the purpose of time bound promotions after a long lapse of time. The respondents have also stated that the first- and second-time bound promotions had already been granted in accordance with the rules and therefore no further relief can be granted. It is further stated that although the third time bound promotion became due on 01.06.2013, the employee expired on 30.10.2014 and therefore the promotion was not issued. The respondents have also pointed out that the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and was rejected on the ground of delay.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 8892/2020
11. The facts relating to the service of the petitioner's husband are largely undisputed. It is not denied that the husband of the petitioner had initially served the department as a daily wager and that his services were later regularized. It is also not in dispute that the department itself had considered the issue of time bound promotions during his service. The controversy essentially relates to the dates from which such benefits were required to be granted and the consequential financial benefits arising therefrom.
12. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the benefits relating to pay fixation, promotions and pensionary entitlements form part of the service rights of an employee. Such benefits do not lapse merely because an employee has died or because some time has elapsed, particularly when the claim relates to pensionary or retiral benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that pension and retiral benefits constitute property within the meaning of Article 300- A of the Constitution and cannot be withheld without lawful justification.
13. In Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pension is not a bounty but a valuable right earned by the employee for the services rendered.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 8892/2020 Similarly, in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that any delay in settlement of retiral benefits must be viewed seriously and the employee or his family should not be deprived of legitimate dues.
14. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the claim of the petitioner essentially relates to correction of the dates of time bound promotions and consequential financial benefits which would have affected the pay fixation and ultimately the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. Once such benefits had accrued during the lifetime of the employee, the same cannot be denied to the legal heirs merely on the ground of delay.
15. The plea of delay raised by the respondents cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The claim relates to service benefits which directly affect pension and family pension. It is well settled that pension related claims constitute a recurring cause of action and therefore such claims cannot be rejected merely on technical grounds of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 has held that claims relating to continuing wrongs such as pay fixation and pension may be HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 8892/2020 entertained even after lapse of time, although the arrears may be restricted to a reasonable period.
16. Another important aspect of the matter is that the husband of the petitioner had already raised the grievance regarding grant of promotion from the correct due date during his lifetime and had submitted representations to the department. The departmental authorities were thus fully aware of the grievance but failed to resolve the matter while the employee was alive. The petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, cannot be deprived of the legitimate financial benefits which had accrued to her husband during his service.
17. It is also relevant to note that the respondents themselves have admitted in their reply that the third time bound promotion had become due on 01.06.2013. Once the eligibility had already arisen prior to the death of the employee, the benefit could not have been denied merely because the formal order was not issued before his demise.
18. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the settled principles of law governing service benefits and pensionary rights, we HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 8892/2020 are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
19. Accordingly, the present Transfer Application is allowed and the following directions are issued: -
a) The respondents shall treat the first-time bound promotion of Late Shri Som Dutt as having been due and granted with effect from 01.06.1995 by taking into account 50% of the daily wage service rendered by him from 05.09.1983 to 30.01.1989 in terms of the provisions contained in SRO-311.
b) The second time bound promotion shall be treated as having been granted with effect from 01.06.2004, with all consequential benefits of pay fixation.
c) The third time bound promotion which had become due on 01.06.2013 shall also be deemed to have been granted to the deceased employee, as the entitlement had accrued during his lifetime prior to his death on 30.10.2014.
d) On the basis of the above promotions, the respondents shall refix the pay of the deceased employee notionally from the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 8892/2020 respective due dates and calculate all consequential arrears of salary which had accrued during his service.
e) The respondents shall thereafter revise the pensionary benefits and family pension of the applicant on the basis of the corrected pay fixation and release all consequential arrears of pension and other retiral dues payable to the applicant.
f) The entire exercise of pay re-fixation, calculation of arrears and release of the consequential monetary benefits shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
20. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV