HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)1200/2023 Pronounced on 09.05.2025 Ghulam Qadir Lone …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr.Mir Javid, Advocate V/s Vice Chairman Lakes and Waterways Development Authority & ors. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy.AG. Mr. B.A.Zargar, Advocate.. CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ or direction as he is aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents for the reason that his service benefits have been withheld by them. 2. The case as projected by the petitioner is that he was working in the respondent-department (LAWDA) and retired from service on 30-04-2020 on superannuation. He was engaged in the department on 20-04-1980 as Daily Wager and rendered his services for twelve years before he was regularized on 01-04-1994 as Helper in the Pay Scale of Rs.750-940. After rendering the effective services, in year 1997, he was promoted to the post of 'Works Supervisor" with effect from 30-04-1997 in the Pay Scale of Rs.4000-100-6000. He continued to work on this post till his superannuation. Additionally WP(C)1200/2023 he was also granted in-situ promotions during the course of his service and he retired in the Pay Scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200. 3. It is urged that petitioner retired on 30-04-2020 and on his retirement, case was forwarded to respondent No.03 for processing the pension and other service benefits of the petitioner. As per PPO Book, respondent No.03 worked out the net gratuity payable to the petitioner at Rs.10,34,784/- and after settling the case of the petitioner in terms of Government Instruction below Article 242 of J&K CSR and respondent No.02 was asked to fulfill certain conditions including furnishing of a certificate to the effect that the benefit of SRO-59 to be allowed to the employee has been found in order. 4. Respondent No.4 forwarded the case to respondent No.2 for necessary action and disbursal of gratuity in favor of the petitioner. It is stated that due to the non-fulfillment of aforementioned conditions by the respondent No.2, neither the pension nor the gratuity of the petitioner could be released in his favor, accordingly, the respondent No.4 issued a reminder to the respondent No.02 for fulfillment of the said conditions. A reliance is placed on the circular issued by the Finance Department under No.A/Codes/Pension/20-116 dated 11-02-2021, wherein it is mentioned that any irregularities found while drawing the pay employee shall be the responsibility of DDO concerned and if any excess amount paid, shall be recovered from him personally. Respondent No.2 to WP(C)1200/2023 avoid the liability kept the pension case of the petitioner pending for the past two years affecting his livelihood. 5. It is urged that petitioner also moved a representation before the respondent-department seeking release of his service benefits; however, despite the lapse of almost four months, the department has arbitrarily deprived him of the benefits and also not disposed of his representation as yet. 6 It is also contended that petitioner further approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench through OA No.425/2022 which was disposed of vide its Order dated 23-5-2022 whereby the respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 02 months but the needful was not done. Thereafter petitioner filed a Contempt Petition against the respondents in C.P/148/2022, however, during the pendency of which respondents took an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the matter as the same falls within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, as such, the Tribunal dismissed the petition vide its Order dated 11-04-2023. 6. The inaction on the part of the respondents for not releasing the service benefits of the petitioner to which he is legally entitled without following the due process of law is illegal, bad, and unconstitutional; therefore service benefits of the petitioner required to be released. 7. Grant of pay scales is in the domain of respondent No.2 and the petitioner has no concern or access to the same and in terms of the WP(C)1200/2023 circular referred to hereinabove it is the sole responsibility of the DDO that, in case, of any irregularity found in the pay scale of an employee and the employee cannot be held accountable for the same after his retirement. 8. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that based on various judgments of the Hob‟ble Apex Court passed in “Union of India and others versus Jagdish Pandey and ors.” decided on 08.07.2010, in case titled as "Sahib Ram versus State of Haryana and others" reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, in case titled as "Syed Abdul Qadir versus State of Bihar and others”, reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475, in case titled as “State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih” report in 2015(4) SCC 334 and in case titled as "Thomas Danial versus State of Kerala and others" 2022 Live law (SC) 438, it has been consistently laid down and held that once the department has made the pay fixation of an employee without any misrepresentation or fraud by the said employee, then the employer cannot reduce the pay by alleging that the pay was fixed wrongly and that too at the fag end of the service of an employee or even after his retirement and that the pension of such an employee is to be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn by such employee and also that no recoveries thereof can be either ordered or effected on account of such alleged wrong fixation at the fag end of that service or after the retirement of the said employee. A judgment dated 28.08.2024 passed by Hon‟ble Division Bench of this court of Srinagar Wing, in case, „Jamsheed Ahmad Khan vs. Union Territory of J & K Kashmir and ors. also relied upon by the WP(C)1200/2023 learned counsel for the petitioner, which according to him does support the case of the petitioner. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also after taking support from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments as well as Division Bench referred to hereinabove, there is no need for a different view to be taken in this matter and the same can be disposed of in light of same. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed after following mandate as laid down in the judgments supra in the instant case as well. The respondents are commanded to release the service benefits as calculated in terms of the PPO issued by respondent No.04 in favour the petitioner and thereafter his monthly pension be also released as per the last pay drawn by the petitioner during his service. 11. Disposed in the terms aforesaid. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu Ved-Secy. 09.05.2025 Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No