LPA No.184/2025 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Pronounced on:22.08.2025 CJ Court CM No.5173/2025 in LPA No.184/2025 1. Union Territory of J&K through Financial Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Housing and Urban Development Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu/ Srinagar. 2. Director, Urban Local Bodies, Kashmir, Srinagar. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sopore. 4. Superintendent, District Jail, Kupwara. ...APPELLANTS(S) Through: - Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG, with Ms. Nawbahar, Assisting Counsel Vs. Khazir Mohammad Shah S/o Ghulam Ahmad Shah R/o Noorbagh Sopore, District Baramulla.. ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT OSWAL ‘J’ CM No.5173/2025 1) As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 273 days in filing the intra-court appeal against judgment dated 09.09.2024 2) In view of the grounds urged in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, coupled with the submission made at bar, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 184/2025 2 | P a g e LPA No.184/2025 1. The respondent was initially appointed as Mashki and subsequently absorbed in the regular establishment by the appellant No.2 vide order dated 20.05.1988. The respondent along with other employees was granted upgraded pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 in terms of order dated 30.10.2002. Thereafter first in-situ promotion in terms of SRO 14 dated 15.01.1996 was granted to the respondent with effect from 01.06.2005, vide order dated 19.05.2007. After the respondent attained superannuation on 31.08.2018, when his case was referred to appellant No.2 for settlement of pension, it transpired that the upgraded pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/ was granted to him wrongly and, accordingly, vide order dated 18.12.2018, the appellant No.2 directed withdrawal of order dated 30.10.2002 and 19.05.2007 and granted post-facto sanction for first step in-situ promotion to the respondent with effect from 01.11.2004 and second in-situ promotion to the higher pay scale with effect from 01.11.2013. Simultaneously, in terms of the same order, the appellant No.2 also directed recovery of the excess amount received by the respondent. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 18.12.2018, the respondent assailed the same before the learned Writ Court through the medium of WP(C) No.2006/2020, on the ground that after his superannuation on 31.08.2018, the appellants could not have withdrawn the benefit of upgradation granted LPA No. 184/2025 3 | P a g e to him and, as such, could not have directed recovery of excess amount, if any, received by the respondent after his retirement. 3. The learned Writ Court vide its order dated 09.09.2024, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696, quashed order dated 18.12.2018 and directed the respondents therein (appellants herein) to release pension and pensionary benefits including the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity in favour of the respondent without making any deduction as contemplated in the impugned communication and further the appellants were directed to settle the pension case of the respondent in the light of the observations made therein. 4. Aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 09.09.2024, the appellants have assailed the same on the ground that the benefit of upgradation was wrongly granted to the respondent, as such, they were well within their power to rescind the said order and affect recovery from the respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused material on record. 6. This is not in dispute that the respondent attained superannuation on 31.08.2018 and the order dated 18.12.2018 was issued by appellant No.2 after the LPA No. 184/2025 4 | P a g e superannuation of respondent. It is not the case of the appellants that there was either any act of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent which resulted in granting of benefit to him. The fault, if any, was of the officials of the appellants and the respondent cannot be penalized when he has already attained superannuation. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Mashih’s case (supra), Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, and Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724. 7. We have examined the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court and we do not find any illegality or impropriety whatsoever therein which would warrant interference of this this Court. 8. Viewed thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. 9. The record be returned to learned counsel for the appellants. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 22.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.08.2025 12:05