Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J And K vs Mohammad Akbar Dar on 7 July, 2026
Serial No. 1
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA 37/2026
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
AND OTHERS
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, AAG
Vs.
MOHAMMAD AKBAR DAR ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Ms Saima Ghulam, Advocate None
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.07.2026
1. This appeal filed under clause 12 of the Letters Patent by the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., is directed
against an order and judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in WP(C) No.
1649/20221649/2022 titled “Mohammad Akbar Dar vs. UT of J&K
and Ors.“, whereby the writ Court has allowed the writ petition
filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellants herein
to release the retiral benefits along with all consequential benefits
which the respondent is found to be entitled to.
2. Before we come to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr.
Shahbaz Sikander, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to state brief
facts as are germane to the disposal of this appeal.
3. The respondent was working as Plant Line Attendant (Store
Khalasee) in the office of the appellants and came to be booked in
FIR No. 80/2012 in the year 2012 for commission of an offence
under Section 380 RPC., registered at Police Station Boniyar. The
respondent was also placed under suspension. The FIR was
1 | Page
investigated and ultimately a challan was presented before the
competent court of jurisdiction. The Court of Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Boniyar, discharged the respondent vide its judgment
dated 04.06.2016. Consequent upon its discharge, the respondent
was reinstated, subject to the outcome of an enquiry to be
conducted by enquiry committee constituted vide order No.
JKSPDC/69 of 2019 dated 17.02.2017. The order further provided
that the period of suspension of respondent will be decided after
the conclusion of enquiry. The respondent, despite having been
reinstated, was not allowed to perform his duties, which
constrained him to file SWP No. 2066/2017 before the learned
Single Judge of this Court. The writ petition was disposed and, in
compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
respondent was reinstated and was also given the salary etc. The
respondent retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2018, but his
case for pension was not finalized due to the pending enquiry into
his conduct. It is with this grievance, the respondents approached
the writ Court by way of WP(C) No. 1649/2022 and prayed for
following reliefs:
a) Writ, order or direction including one in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to process the case of
the petitioner for release and pensionary benefits and other
consequential benefits.
b) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper be also issued in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
4. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents on the
ground that till the enquiry initiated against the respondent is not
concluded, his pensionary benefits cannot be released. The writ
Court, having considered the rival stand of the parties and the
submissions made by the learned counsel at Bar, came to the
conclusion that mere pendency of criminal
investigation/prosecution cannot be a ground for withholding the
retiral benefits of a Government employee. The writ Court has
relied upon couple of judgments to come to such conclusion.
2 | Page
5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions of the parties and are of the view that writ Court has
rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and
granted the relief prayed for therein. It is true that unless the
recoveries against an employee are established in a duly
constituted enquiry or civil proceedings, the post retiral benefits
available to such an employee under law cannot be withheld.
6. In the instant case, the alleged recoveries against the
respondent had not been established in any civil proceedings or
even in the duly instituted departmental proceedings and,
therefore, there was no warrant for withholding his retiral
benefits. To this extent, we wholly concur with a view taken by the
writ Court.
7. The reliance placed by the writ Court upon the two
judgments referred in paragraph 8, i.e., SWP No. 1954/2017 titled
“Aftab Ahmad Malik vs. State of J&K and Ors.” and SWP No.
1351/2017 titled “Qazi Qamara-ud-Din Vs. State of J&K and Ors.”
was not called for in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
The case ought to have been decided on its facts i.e., in the absence
of any recoveries established in a Court of law or a duly instituted
enquiry, the respondents are not entitled to withhold the retiral
benefits of the respondent. The conclusion of the writ Court are, of
course only to that extent. Indisputably, the recoveries can only be
made from the respondents after these are established in
accordance with law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the appeal, and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (Acting)
SRINAGAR:
07.07.2026
Aadil
3 | Page
