1 | P a g e Serial No. 55 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2984/2025. GHULAM MOHAMMAD SOFI (SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Mohammad Ilayas, Advocate VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. Through: Mr. Numan Malik, Dy. AG. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 08-04-2026 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present Writ petition is seeking a direction upon the respondents to release all service benefits in his favour, including salary, increments, promotional benefits, benefits of pay Commission, gratuity, and other consequential service-related benefits. 02. According to the petitioner, he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Institute of Management, Public Administration and Rural Development, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “IMPARD”), and stood superannuated with effect from 31st of January 2018. It has been submitted that an FIR bearing No. 49 of 2003 came to be registered against the petitioner, which culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet before the competent Court. The petitioner, however, is stated to have been acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 12th of September 2019 passed by the learned Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, 2 | P a g e Srinagar. It has been submitted that from the year 2003 to 2018, the petitioner was paid only subsistence allowance, despite the fact that no formal order of suspension was ever issued or communicated to him. It is further submitted that during the said period, the petitioner continued to attend his duties. 03. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide order dated 23rd of June 2024, issued by the respondents the petitioner was treated to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st of January 2018. However, on the pretext of the aforesaid FIR, all service benefits due to the petitioner have been withheld by the respondents. It has been further submitted that the petitioner made repeated requests to the respondents for release of his retiral and other service benefits, but no action was taken by the respondents. It has also been submitted that the respondents, on the pretext that the Service Book of the petitioner was damaged in the floods of the year 2014, have delayed the release of service benefits in his favour. 04. According to the petitioner, in terms of instructions issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) vide order dated 10th of August 2022, sanction came to be accorded for reconstruction of the Service Book of the petitioner. However, despite such sanction, the respondents failed to reconstruct the Service Book and also failed to release the service benefits in his favour, which compelled the petitioner to file Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 681/2024. The said Writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1st of April 2024, whereby the respondents were directed to reconstruct the Service Book of the petitioner strictly in conformity with the rules and as per law. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Service Book of the petitioner stands reconstructed. However, even 3 | P a g e thereafter, the respondents have failed to release the service benefits in favour of the petitioner, except for the leave salary, hence the Writ petition. 05. The respondents have filed reply to the Writ petition in which they have submitted that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of 383 days w.e.f 01.12.2016 to 31.01.2018 and that the said period has been treated as dies non in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Rules. It has further been contended that the service record of the petitioner is under scrutiny by the competent authorities and that the pension case of the petitioner was placed before the 9th meeting of the Sub-Committee of Executive Council, of J&K IMPARD, wherein it was decided that the pension case of the petitioner be forwarded to the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for their opinion. The respondents have, however, admitted that the Service Book of the petitioner stands reconstructed. They have also admitted the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 07. The stand taken by the respondents is that the period of absence from duty on the part of the petitioner w.e.f 01.12.2016 to 31.01.2018 has been treated as dies non. However, no formal order to this effect has been placed on record. Neither, it is the case of the respondents that they have proceeded against the petitioner for having remained unauthorizedly absence by holding any departmental enquiry in this regard. 08. The respondents have not denied the claim of the petitioner insofar as it relates to release of salary, service benefits, and other pensionary benefits. 4 | P a g e The only contention of the respondents is that the service record of the petitioner is under examination and that his unauthorized absence of (383) days has been treated as dies non. 09. In light of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, it is directed that the respondents shall take a final decision with regard to the release of the outstanding salary, and other service/ pensionary benefits in his favour, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. If the petitioner feels aggrieved of the decision that may be taken by the respondents, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy. 10. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 08-04-2026 Showkat Khan