Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J&K vs Farooq Ahmad Zargar on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 353/2024
Reserved On: 26th of February, 2026.
Pronounced On: 12th of March, 2026.
Uploaded On: 12th of March, 2026.
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.
1. Union Territory of J&K,
Through Principal Secretary to Government,
Power Development Department (now Corporation),
Civil Secretariat, J&K, Srinagar/ Jammu.
2. Chief Engineer, Jammu & Kashmir Power Corporation
Ltd. (JKPCL), Srinagar.
3. Executive Engineer, Jammu & Kashmir Power
Corporation Ltd. (JKPCL) Division-III, Bemina,
Srinagar.
4. Accounts Officer, Jammu & Kashmir Power
Corporation Ltd. (JKPCL), Bemina, Srinagar.
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate.
V/s
1. Farooq Ahmad Zargar, Age: 60 Years
S/O Late Gh Mohi-ud-Din Zargar
R/O Model Town Sopore, District Baramullah.
... Contesting Respondent
2. Principal Accountant General (A&E), through its Senior
Accounts Officer (A&E) PNR-3 C/O Principal
Accountant General, J&K, Srinagar.
… Proforma Respondent
Through: –
Mr L. A. Latief, Advocate for R-1; and
Mr B. A. Zargar, Advocate for R-2.
LPA No. 353/2024
Page 2 of 6
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
SHAHZAD AZEEM-J:
01. The Appellants have thrown challenge to the Order dated July
24, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”] in WP (C)
No. 1261/2023 titled ‘Farooq Ahmad Zargar v. UT of J&K and Ors.‘,
whereby the Writ Court directed the Principal Accountant General to
authorize the pension as well as post-retiral benefits to the Respondent No.1
in accordance with pay fixed in his favour by his parent Department.
02. The central issue in the present appeal concerns the grant of
benefit of SRO 149 of 1973. Before the Writ Court, the Appellants-
Respondents had taken a position that the issue involved in the matter was
pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Cout. It is not in dispute
that during the pendency of the present appeal, the Apex Court has now
adjudicated upon the said issue. The controversy, therefore, stands settled
and the present appeal is required to be decided in terms of the Order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of this development, we do
not propose to burden this Judgment with an elaborate discussion of all the
factual and legal pleas raised by the parties and shall delineate only those
facts which are necessary for the present appeal.
03. Succinctly stated, the Respondent No.1, in December, 1977,
initially came to be engaged as PDL/ TDL (Permanent Daily Labour/
Temporary Daily Labour) in the Power Development Department. Upon
completion of more than eight years of service, the Respondent No.1 was
regularized as Helper in the pay scale of Rs. 345-460 vide Order No.
DC/PD/Budget/V/203 of 1985 dated October 28, 985 issued by the
Development Commissioner, Power. The Respondent No.1 possessed ITI
qualification in Electrician trade and, in view of the said qualification, his
pay scale was temporarily upgraded to Rs. 1150-2050 vide Order No.
LPA No. 353/2024
Page 3 of 6
CE/M&RE/61 of 1991 dated August 13, 1991 with effect from April 25,
1990, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the
High Court. Subsequently, the benefit of the revised grade Rs. 1400-2600
was stopped in terms of Circular No. PDD/VI/ITI/90 dated April 08, 1992
for the period from May, 1992 to May, 1993. Thereafter, the Respondent
No.1 superannuated from service on February 28, 2023, after rendering
long years of service in the Department and, as such, his pension case was
thereafter forwarded by the Pay and Accounts Officer, JKPCL, Srinagar to
the office of the Accountant General, J&K for settlement of pensionary
benefits. The office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), J&K
returned the pension case with the observation that the pay of the
Respondent No.1 was required to be re-fixed after excluding the benefit of
SRO 149 of 1973, on the ground that the issue regarding grant of such
benefit was stated to be pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
04. The Appellants contend that since the Respondent No.1 had
availed the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 under the cover of Government
Order No. 309-PDD of 1995 dated August 30, 1995, despite the fact that he
was not a party to the litigation concerning SRO 149. According to the
Appellants, upon consideration of representations and examination of the
legal position, the Department concluded that SRO 149 of 1973 stood
superseded by subsequent pay revision rules, including SRO 91 of 1982,
SRO 370 of 1987 and SRO 75 of 1992, thereby rendering the provisions of
SRO 149 inoperative. It is further contended that SRO 381 of 1981, by
virtue of its repealing clause, repealed all earlier rules inconsistent with the
Recruitment Rules framed in 1981, thereby nullifying the effect of SRO149
of 1973. The appellants also submit that Government Order No. 309-PDD
of 1995 was intended only as a one-time special dispensation for certain in-
service employees, who had obtained ITI qualification between July 01,
1972 and August 31, 1981 and who were already drawing the said benefit.
LPA No. 353/2024
Page 4 of 6
It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 neither applied for the benefit under
SRO 149 nor approached any Court of law seeking such benefit, but
managed to obtain entries in his service book and continued to draw the
benefit until his retirement.
05. Aggrieved by the non-release of his pensionary benefits, the
Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition-WP (C) No. 1261/2023, titled ‘Farooq
Ahmad Zargar V. UT of J&K and Ors.‘, seeking quashing of
communication dated February 09, 2023 issued by the office of the
Accountant General and for release of his pensionary benefits on the basis
of last pay drawn. The Writ Court, vide Order dated July 24, 2024, allowed
the Writ Petition and directed the Accountant General to authorize pension
and other post-retiral benefits in favour of the Respondent No.1-Petitioner,
in accordance with the pay fixed by the parent Department and further
restrained the authorities from effecting any recovery from the Respondent
No.1-Petitioner. This Order of the Writ Court has been assailed by the
Appellants through the medium of the present appeal.
06. Heard and considered.
07. The principal contention urged by the Appellants before the
Writ Court was that the issue relating to grant of benefit under SRO 149 of
1973 to the employees of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir was
pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, till
such time the matter was finally adjudicated, they could not extend the said
benefit to the Petitioner-Respondent No.1 herein. The Writ Court rejected
the aforesaid contention and held that mere pendency of a matter before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning grant of benefit under SRO 149 of 1973
cannot be a ground to deny the Petitioner-Respondent No.1 his pensionary
benefits and further went onto observe that the inaction on the part of the
Accountant General in not authorizing the pension of the Petitioner-
Respondent No.1 in accordance with the recommendation of his parent
Department was legally unsustainable.
LPA No. 353/2024
Page 5 of 6
08. The same contention has been urged before us in the present
appeal that since the issue relating to the grant of benefit under SRO 149 of
1973 was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
therefore, the Petitioner-Respondent No.1 was not entitled to the said
benefit.
09. Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the matter which
was relied upon by the Appellants already stands adjudicated by the Order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘The State of Jammu
and Kashmir & Ors. v. Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No (s). 7992 of 2022′, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
after considering the submissions advanced by the parties and examining
the material placed on record, found no ground warranting interference with
the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu &
Kashmir titled ‘Provincial Power Employees Union of India v. State of
J&K and Ors., SWP No. 809/2001 v. State of J&K and Ors.’ and,
accordingly, dismissed the appeals on merits. While doing so, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rejected the challenge thrown by the Government of Jammu
& Kashmir to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby
the impugned Order dated May 12, 2016, by virtue of which the benefits
earlier granted to the employees under SRO 149 of 1973 were withdrawn/
kept in abeyance, had been quashed. In the said Judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the Court had further directed the Respondents to continue payment
of salary to the Petitioners therein in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 in
cases where the said benefit had already been extended and further directed
the Respondents to extend the benefit of the said revised pay scale to such
Petitioners to whom the aforesaid benefit had not been extended, within a
period of four months from the date of the Judgment, with effect from the
date the same became due to them. The Division Bench had further held
that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State
LPA No. 353/2024
Page 6 of 6
of Punjab & Ors. V. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334′, recovery of excess
payment cannot be affected from a Class-III employee or from an employee
who has already superannuated. It was also observed that the benefit of
SRO 149 of 1973 and the subsequent revised pay scales had already been
extended to the employees of several departments such as the Geology and
Mining Department and the Police Department who possessed
Matriculation with ITI qualification and, therefore, denial of the same
benefit to the Petitioners therein would be irrational, arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Therefore, all the issues raised by the Appellants in this appeal
have been authoritatively dealt by the Division Bench of this Court while
passing the Judgment in the batch of Writ Petitions in Provincial Power
Employees Union case (supra), against which the Appellants-State had
filed SLP which stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby
upholding the Judgment passed by the Division Bench, thus, the issue has
already attained the finality and same shall govern this appeal also.
Accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid Order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the controversy sought to be raised in the present appeal no
longer survives for adjudication before this Court. The appeal, therefore,
does not merit any interference and, as such, the same shall stand
dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
March 12th, 2026
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
