GHULAM JEELANI MIR Vs. SRINAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAWS(J&K)-2020-3-38
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 16,2020

Ghulam Jeelani Mir Appellant
VERSUS
Srinagar Municipal Corporation Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ali Mohammad Magrey,J. - (1.)In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in his favour:
'a) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, quashing the communication dated 03.06.2017 and 08.06.2017, whereby the Gratuity of the Petitioner has been fixed as Rs.4,68,402/- instead of Rs.6,60,083/- and Pension at Rs.6,167/- instead of Rs.8,890/-.

b) ISSUE an appropriate Writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to pay whole amount of Rs.6,60,083/- as Gratuity and Pension of Rs.8,890/- as calculated and recommended by the Respondent Corporation in favour of the Petitioner from the date of his retirement and subsequently pay all the arrears alongwith 18% interest in favour of the Petitioner;

c) ISSUE a Writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to grant service benefits for the intervening period in favour of the Petitioner as has been held by this Hon'ble Court in its Judgment dated 16.10.2000 passed in SWP No. 1088/1998.

d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case may be issued in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.'

(2.)The case of the petitioner is that he was, initially, appointed as Syee in the Srinagar Municipality and assigned the duties and functions of Birth and Death Reporter. It is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1978, but the order of suspension was never ever served upon the petitioner, despite his repeated requests. No enquiry was initiated in the matter nor was the petitioner associated with any enquiry by the respondents. His period of suspension was also not settled and during suspension, he was not paid the subsistence allowance too. The petitioner was apprehensive that the respondents will hold an enquiry and that the case of his suspension will be decided. He waited for long years, but no enquiry came to be conducted. The petitioner filed representations for the said purpose before the respondents, but to no avail constraining the petitioner to approach this Court through the medium of SWP No. 1088/1998, which petition, vide judgment dated 16th of October, 2000, was disposed of directing the respondents to take the petitioner back in service with a further direction that he shall be entitled only to the service benefits for the intervening period and not to any monetary benefits. In compliance of the said judgment, as sated, the respondents issued order No. 1259 of 2001 dated 31st of January, 2001, by virtue of which the petitioner was reinstated back in service and was held entitled to service benefits for the intervening period and not to any monetary benefits. Subsequently, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31st of March, 2017 and his case was forwarded by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 vide communication dated April, 2017, whereby the gratuity paid to the petitioner was calculated as Rs.6,60,083/- and pension for 42 years of service was calculated as Rs.8,890/-. The respondent No.4 has, as stated, forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Treasury Officer, Additional Treasury Tankipora, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.6,167/- and the petitioner has been held entitled to an amount of Rs.4,68,402/- as Gratuity.
On enquiry, the petitioner was told that his intervening period has not been counted towards his service, as such, his Gratuity as well as pension has been reduced. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has knocked at the portals of this Court for the above stated relief.

(3.)On notice having been issued, the respondents have filed objections resisting and controverting the averments made by the petitioner in his petition. It is stated that the fixation for the intervening period, i.e., from the date of suspension/ termination of the petitioner to the date when he is taken back into service as per the directions of the Court have, however, been notional only and, therefore, the services of the petitioner for the period can neither be verified nor counted in calculating the qualifying service for pensionary benefits in accordance with rules governing the field. It is also stated that the pension sanctioning authority has to sanction pension and other retirement benefits in favour of any retiring officer/ official and that the amounts actually admissible are, however, authorized by the Audit office to whom the pension cases are referred for such purpose.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.