Gulam Mohi-ud-Din Khan vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a senior citizen and had served in the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department as [MAT]. It is submitted that during his service, the applicant received appreciation from his superior officers for his performance and rendered more than 30 years of meritorious and unblemished service before retiring from service on 31.01.2023. It is further submitted that the applicant, along with 57 similarly situated employees, was granted an increment of Rs. 1,284/- with effect from 01.07.2007 to 01.04.2014 in terms of SRO-59 of 1990. It is contended that, at the time of his retirement, the applicant's retirement gratuity was assessed at Rs. 7,84,634/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 7,09,928/- was deducted by the respondents, and that the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 was not duly extended to him, resulting in fixation of his pension at a lower rate. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid facts can be ascertained from the applicant's service book and the gratuity papers prepared by the respondents, copies whereof have been placed on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2.

It is further submitted that the applicant has been continuously approaching the respondents since 2023 and had finally submitted a representation dated 11.05.2025 seeking similar treatment and the benefits extended to similarly situated employees. It is submitted that despite the said representation, no final decision has been taken Central Administrative Tribunal^{by the respondents. A copy of the representation dated} 11.05.2025 has been placed on record as Annexure A-3.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment/order passed in O.A. No. 1016/2021, titled Mohd. Yousif Joo & Others, stated to have been decided on 23.04.2025, and submits that in the said matter directions were issued regarding calculation and release of retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave salary and other post-retiral benefits, in respect of similarly situated employees, without depriving them of the benefits claimed under SRO-59 of 1990. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment/order passed in O.A. No. 592/2023, titled Mehraj-ud-Din & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, stated to have been decided on 27.09.2024, wherein, according to learned counsel, similar directions were issued in respect of similarly situated employees.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has been fixed at a lower rate of pension and Central Administrative Tribunal^{that, despite his repeated representations, the respondents} have failed to extend to him the benefit claimed under SRO-59 of 1990 and the benefit of the judgments rendered in the cases of similarly situated employees. It is contended that the applicant has been pursuing his grievance before the respondents and that the continued inaction on their part has adversely affected his pensionary and retiral benefits.

It is further submitted that the deduction of Rs. 7,09,928/-from the gratuity of the applicant and the fixation of his pension at a lower rate have been effected without following the prescribed procedure and without affording him an effective opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been treated differently from similarly situated employees and that the respondents are required to consider his claim in accordance with the applicable service rules and the judgments relied upon by him.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal^{aforesaid claims may be considered by the respondents in} the light of the judgments relied upon by him, including Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, which judgment was relied upon orally during the course of arguments; O.A. No. 1016/2021, titled Mohd. Yousif Joo & Others, decided on 23.04.2025; and O.A. No. 592/2023, titled Mehraj-ud-Din & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, decided on 27.09.2024, as well as the applicable rules governing the field.

Learned counsel for the applicant accordingly prays that the respondents be directed to consider his case in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules and to release all consequential pensionary and retiral benefits to which he may be found entitled, including the amount allegedly deducted from his gratuity.

Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganie, learned DAG, appearing for the respondents, on advance notice, submits that the claims raised by the applicant are required to be examined in the Central Administrative Tribunal^{light of the judgments governing the field, including Sita} Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, WP(C) No. 1730/2020 (O&M) c/w CCP(S) No. 32/2021, decided on 02.06.2022, and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, particularly with regard to the competence of the Department to examine the correctness of pay fixation and to take consequential action in accordance with the applicable rules. Learned DAG submits that the applicant's claim may accordingly be examined by the competent authority in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules. He, however, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of Central Administrative Tribunal^{the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be} served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the nature of the grievance raised by the applicant and the limited relief sought by him. The grievance of the applicant essentially relates to the applicability of SRO-59 of 1990 to his individual case, the consequential fixation of his pay and pension, the retiral benefits payable to him and the deduction allegedly made from his gratuity.

This Tribunal has taken note of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, namely Mohd. Yousif Joo & Others (supra), Mehraj-ud-Din & Others v. Union Territory of J&K & Others (supra), and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others (supra). The Tribunal has also taken note of the judgments relied upon by the learned DAG appearing for the respondents, namely Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (supra), Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others Central Administrative Tribunal^{(supra), and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool} Sheikh & Others (supra). The Tribunal has further taken note of the submission made by the learned DAG that the applicant's claim requires examination in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules, particularly with regard to the competence of the Department to examine the correctness of the pay fixation and to take consequential action in accordance with law.

The principles emerging from the aforesaid judgments, to the extent applicable to the facts of the applicant's case, as also the statutory rules governing pay fixation, pension and retiral benefits, would necessarily have to be kept in view by the competent authority while examining the applicant's individual case. At the same time, this Tribunal is not inclined to straightaway adjudicate upon the applicant's entitlement to the benefit claimed under SRO-59 of 1990 or the correctness of the fixation of his pay and pension on the basis of the material presently available on record. The questions as to whether the benefit of SRO-59 Central Administrative Tribunal^{of 1990 was rightly extended to the applicant, whether any} subsequent correction or re-fixation is permissible in law, and what consequential effect, if any, such determination would have upon his pensionary and retiral benefits require examination of the applicant's individual service record and the applicable rules.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim. All questions of fact and law, including the applicant's entitlement to the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990, the correctness of the fixation of his pay and pension and the legality of the deduction from his gratuity, are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.