Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Ramzan Sheikh vs Union Territory Of J And K And on 4 March, 2026
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
Serial No. 54
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 2090/2024
MOHAMMAD RAMZAN SHEIKH ... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Farooq Ahmad Paul, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ...Respondent(s)
ORS.
Through: Mr. Ilayas Laway, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
04.03.2026
1. Petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India states to have been appointed as a Seasonal
Sweeper vide order dated 16.05.1988 on monthly wages of
Rs. 450/- , whereafter his service came to be regularized in the pay
scale of Rs. 255-3200 w.e.f 1st October 2001, and, that after
rendering his service successfully, he, the petitioner retired on
superannuation, however, his retiral benefits were not released by
the respondents owing to the alleged involvement of the petitioner
in FIR No. 19/2011 registered with Police Station Crime Branch,
Kashmir when infact the petitioner was neither involved in the said
FIR nor any sort of inquiry had been either initiated or conducted by
the respondents against the petitioner, warranting with holding of
his retiral benefits.
2. Objections have not been filed by the respondents to the petition
despite availing multiple opportunities.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. While making his submissions the counsel for the petitioner
produced a copy of FIR No.19/2011 supra and would submit, that
even though the FIR came to be registered in the year 2011, it has
no bearing upon the case of the petitioner yet till date the petitioner
has neither been during the course of his employment with the
respondents implicated/arraigned, as an accused therein nor else
even after his retirement so much so no inquiry is or was initiated in
the matter against the petitioner, and therefore, under these
circumstances, the respondents cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner, or else,
refuse to reconstruct his service book and make necessary entries
therein. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission,
would heavily rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of this 3
Court passed in cases titled as “Ghulam Mohi ud din Lone Vs.
State of J&K and Ors., decided on 11.12.2020″, in violating similar
issues which are involved in the instant petition.
4. Perusal of the record available on file manifestly suggests that as on
date the petitioner herein has not been found involved in FIR
No.19/2011 or else implicated/arraigned, as an accused therein. It
has also not been denied by the respondents that any disciplinary
proceedings in regard to either the engagement or regularization of
the petitioner stands initiated against his either during his service or
is pending after his retirement. Though Article 168-A and 168-D of
the J&K Civil Service Regulations applicable to the Government
employees makes it explicit that the Government is entitled to order
the recovery from the pension of an employee any amount on
account of loss found in judicial or departmental proceedings to
have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of an
such employee during his service, the said Articles however, further
provides that if such departmental or judicial proceedings are not
initiated against the employee while he is in service or on duty, the
same shall not be instituted without sanction of the Government and
shall be instituted within a year from the date he was last on duty,
and that the proceedings must not pertain to an event which took
place not more than one year before the date of which the
employeewas last on duty.
5. In presence of the aforesaid provisions of the Civil Service
Regulations and the aforesaid facts that no judicial or departmental
proceedings have had been either instituted or initiated against the
petitioner herein while being in service or within one year from the
date the petitioner was last on duty, it can safely be said that
withholding of the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not tenable in
law, in that, law is settled that the retiral benefits of an employee are
not bounties to be given by an employer to the employee, as it is
earned by the employee by dint of his long, continuous, and
unblemished service. The Apex Court in case titled as
“Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar” reported in AIR 1971
SC 1409″ has authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and
payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government
but is governed by the 4 rules and the Government servant coming
within those rules is entitled to claim pension as of right while
holding further that grant of pension does not depend on anyone’s
discretion.
Further, the Apex Court in case titled as “U. P. State Sugar
Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon“, reported
in 2008(2) SCC 41, has also held that retiral benefits are earned by
an employee for long and meritorious service, and gratuity is paid to
such an employee for his dedicated and devoted work and that even
though the departmental inquiry can be initiated against the
Government servant after his superannuation, pension can be
reduced and gratuity can be withheld, and that such proceedings
cannot only be initiated before the employee retires but also
continues after his retirement and can be initiated after his
retirement as well provided any pecuniary loss recoverable caused
to the Government is recoverable from the said Government
employee, which loss had been caused due to his negligence or
service misconduct.
6. Risking repetition and as noticed above, neither any judicial nor any
departmental proceedings have had been initiated/instituted against
the petitioner by the respondents while being in service or even after
his retirement, the respondents cannot thus withhold the retiral
benefits of the petitioner, on any grounds .
7. Viewed thus for the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition deserves
to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, by issuance of the writ of Mandamus, respondents are
commanded to reconstruct the service book of the petitioner and
make all necessary entries therein in accordance with the applicable
rules, and consequently release all retiral benefits, including the
arrears thereof in favour of the petitioner to which the petitioner is
entitled thereto, within a period of two months from the date a copy
of this order is produced by the petitioner before the respondents.
Should the respondents fail to carry out the aforesaid directions
within a period prescribed above the respondents shall in that event
be liable to pay an interest to the petitioner over the retiral benefits
and arrears at the rate of 7% from the date same became due to the
petitioner till the date of actual payment thereof.
9. Disposed of along with all connected application/s
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
04.03.2026
“S.Nuzhat”
Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes