Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1968 (JK)

Latifa Bano v. Ut Of J&K

2026-04-08

Sanjay Dhar

body2026
ORDER : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1) The petitioners through the medium of present petition have sought a direction upon the respondents to grant them full pensionary benefits and all other retirement benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and other terminal dues strictly in accordance with their last pay drawn in the substantive posts held by them at the time of retirement. The petitioners have also sought a direction seeking implementation of IMPARD Order No.638 dated 14.08.2024. 2) As per case of the petitioners, they were appointed on various posts with the respondent Jammu and Kashmir Institute of Management, Public Administration and Rural Development (for short “IMPARD”) in the years 1986, 1987 and 1992 after having undergone the process of selection. After serving the IMPARD over a period of time, the petitioners were accorded promotion to higher posts from time to time. 3) According to the petitioners all the promotions which were given to them were cleared by the Departmental Promotion Committee only upon satisfying the eligibility criteria for promotion to their respective posts including the mandatory service requirements and other qualifying conditions stipulated under the relevant Recruitment Rules. It has been submitted that the promotion orders of the petitioners have attained finality and the same have vested all service benefits attached to the promotional posts in their favour. 4) It has been further submitted that the petitioners duly assumed the charge of respective promotional posts and continuously drew salary and all other benefits commensurate with their promoted position throughout their service tenure. It has been submitted that each of the petitioners has served for at least five to six years on the posts to which they were promoted before their superannuation thereby establishing their right to pensionary benefits on the basis of their last pay drawn. 5) It has been submitted that the petitioners superannuated in the years 2021, 2022 and 2024 but they were denied their rightful pensionary benefits on the basis of their last drawn salaries in their promoted positions and instead they have been granted provisional pension and retirement benefits corresponding to the substantive posts which they had held prior to their promotion under order Nos.398/J, 399/J and 400/J of 2016. 6) It has been submitted that the petitioners approached the respondents a number of times but without any success. 6) It has been submitted that the petitioners approached the respondents a number of times but without any success. According to the petitioners, one Shri Rajinder Bardwaj, who was also promoted alongside the petitioners under IMPARD Order No.398/J dated 07.12.2016, has drawn pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay drawn. Thus, the respondents have discriminated against the petitioners. 7) It has been submitted that vide IMPARD Order No.638 dated 14.08.2024, it has been provided that all cases relating to grant of full pensionary benefits shall be settled/regulated in favour of the employees retired on previous posts in accordance with the last pay drawn by them at the time of their superannuation on the substantive posts. Despite this binding directive, the respondents have failed and neglected to implement the said order in the case of the petitioners who are being denied their rightful retiral benefits. 8) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in which it has been submitted that the petitioners have been promoted on the basis of the decisions take by the Sub Committee. It has been submitted that the said Sub Committee met periodically including on 18.10.2016 and 02.12.2016 and took various decisions concerning the promotion and upgradation of employees, which were subsequently implemented through departmental orders subject to the approval and ratification of the Executive Council. It has been contended that order dated 14.08.2024 (supra) has been issued pursuant to aforesaid administrative decision whereby it was laid down that the pensionary benefits shall be governed in accordance with SRO 186 of 2009 and SRO 421 of 1997 based on the principle of last pay drawn at the time of superannuation. 9) According to the respondents, prior to the issuance of aforesaid order, the matter was referred to the General Administration Department seeking advice regarding pension fixation in respect of employees promoted through Sub- Committee decisions. It has been further contended that vide communication dated 06.04.2021, the General Administration Department advised that the matter be placed before the Chairman of the Executive Council for appraisal and confirmation of the actions taken by the Sub-Committee. It has been submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid advisory, a proposal was submitted on 03.07.2025 for reconstitution of the Executive Council and Sub-Committee, whereafter the Government has, vide Order No.1376-JK(GAD) of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, reconstituted the Executive Council as well as the Sub-Committee. It has been submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid advisory, a proposal was submitted on 03.07.2025 for reconstitution of the Executive Council and Sub-Committee, whereafter the Government has, vide Order No.1376-JK(GAD) of 2025 dated 23.10.2025, reconstituted the Executive Council as well as the Sub-Committee. This, according to the respondents, would enable the consideration and ratification of all pending pension and service matters including those of the petitioners. 10) The respondents have submitted that once the reconstituted Executive Council ratifies the decision of the Sub-Committee, the final pension fixation in respect of the petitioners would be made. Thus, the stand of the respondents is that there has been delay in final fixation of pensionary benefits of the petitioners on account of the issue regarding reconstitution of the Executive Council. 11) Heard and considered. 12) From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute as regards the factual aspects of the matter. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been accorded promotion to higher posts from which they have now superannuated after drawing salary in the pay scale attached to these posts. The only hindrance that has been projected by the respondents for not finalizing the pensionary benefits of the petitioners is that the promotion accorded in their favour by the Sub-Committee is yet to be ratified by the Executive Council which was not in place until it was reconstituted in terms of Government Order dated 23.10.2025. 13) In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, a direction is issued to them to place the matter relating to finalization of retiral benefits of the petitioners before the Executive Council within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is served upon them and the Executive Council shall thereupon take a decision in the matter most expeditiously in accordance with law.