Serial No. 05 REGULAR CAUSE LIST HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 101/2026 CM 207/2026 Union Territory of J&K and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA Vs. Ali Mohd Khan and Another ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. M.A. Beigh, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 28.04.2026 01. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order and judgment dated 1st May, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 880/2024, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent and directed the petitioners herein not to effect recovery of any excess amount paid to the respondent during the service period that too after his superannuation. 02. The petitioners have further been directed to release the retiral benefits without deducting the benefits extended to the respondent No. 1 under SRO 59 of 1990. 03. The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has gone wrong in providing that the respondents are entitled to retiral benefits MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.26 without deducting the benefits extended to him under SRO 59 of 1990. 04. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submitted that the controversy raised in this petition stands squarely covered by a number of judgments of this Court, including the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 119/2022 titled “Union Territory of J&K and Ors. Vs. Deshbir Singh and Anr.” as well as the judgment dated 4th April, 2025 passed in WP(C) No. 2416/2024 titled “Sita Ram and Ors. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.“. 05. In view of the aforesaid fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties and the legal position on this point settled by this Court, the present petition is allowed partially and the judgment impugned insofar as it directs the petitioners herein to release retiral benefits to the respondent No. 1 herein without deducting the benefits extended under SRO 59 of 1990 is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that there shall be no recovery of the amount already paid to the respondent No. 1 herein. 06. Needless to say, that the respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to withheld post retiral benefits as per law. 07. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 28.04.2026 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.26