MUBARIK AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Jammu & Kashmir State
Constitution, for commanding the respondents to settle the pension case
of the petitioner at the rate of 18% interest and to award compensation
in favour of the petitioner on the grounds taken in the writ petition,
which can be aptly and precisely summarized as under: -
The petitioner, who was the employee of Health Department, attained the age of superannuating in terms of annexure -P2. The respondents had not settled the pension case of the petitioner in time which constrained the petitioner to file the present petition. The petitioner has prayed for grant of following reliefs: -
"(a) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to take effective and proper steps and to settle the pension case of the petitioner and to release all pensioner benefits, gratuity and other Service benefits to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to under rules, and further, (b) by issuance of an appropriate writ, all service benefits be released retrospectively with interest at 18% applicable for all nationalize banks and further, (c) by issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order, the petitioner be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. five lacs and, further, (d) by issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondents barring the respondent No.3 (Chief Medical officer, Pulwama) be commanded to initiate disciplinary action proceedings against Respondent No.3 in committing intentional and deliberate delay towards the settlement of the pension case of the petitioner and necessary orders be issued against respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 be penalized for making deliberate attempt in causing harm to the petitioner and effecting service rights and benefits of the petitioner. "
(2.) THIS Writ petition came to be admitted vide order dated 10th September, 1999. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed reply. It is
profitable to reproduce para (a) of the preliminary objections, herein,
which read as under : -
"(a) That petitioner was asked by the CMO, Pulwama to provide relevant service record in order to complete his pension case. The service book of petitioner was not supported with the history sheet w.ef 14.6.61 i.e. the date of first appointment on 30.4.77 and service history sheet had to be completed from the records. Not only that the service records was also not complete in respect of time bound promotion as petitioner had not applied for time bound promotion well in time during his service period, so the same has now been completed after petitioner s retirement. It is pertinent to mention it here that the petitioner had spent a period of about 9 years in foreign assignment during his service period with the result his service record was not complete due to his absence from duty. Petitioner was also required under rules to provide No Demand Certificate from the Estates Department as required under rules for completion of his pension case. Petitioner did not provide Form (A) and no demand certificate and other service record neither to the respondent No.5(Accountant General) nor to the parent department for completion of his pension case. However, the pension case of petitioner has now been submitted to the respondent No. 5 without aforementioned documents. So at no point of time, answering respondents can be held liable for not completing the pension case of petitioner. It is only because of negligence of petitioner that the pension case has not been settled, as petitioner did not complete the formalities. The writ petition, as such is. not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. "
(3.) , Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. It is profitable to reproduce para -1 of the rejoinder affidavit, herein, which reads as under -
"l/ That the facts stated in the heading preliminary objections points towards the negligence and undue delay caused by the respondents 1 and 2 in completing the pension case of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is for the employer to keep upto date service record of its employees particularly of those employees who are likely to attain the age of retirement. In the present case the respondents had not taken any pains to update the service record of the petitioner who retired in April 1996, but notwithstanding this fact an attempt has been made to blame the petitioner for such lapse. It is further submitted that the respondents have stated a patent lie in the para under reply that the petitioner had not furnished no demand certificates and other documents. It is submitted that primely it was the duty of the employer to collect these certificates from the concerned quarters, however the petitioner in order to facilitate the job of the respondents and expedite the finalization of his pension case supplied all these documents to the Chief Medical Officer Pulwama on 11.11.98. Subsequently the petitioner was again required to submit these documents and he again submitted these documents on 28.06.99. After filing the present writ petition the pension case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Accountant General Srinagar without annexing No demand Certificate from Estates Department, Form A and No demand Certificate on Form 8, notwithstanding the fact that these documents were already with the respondents. Consequently the pension case of the petitioner could not be finalised for want of these documents and the chief Medical Officer was asked by the Accountant General to submit these documents, but the Chief Medical Officer instead of doing the needful again required the petitioner to furnish these documents. The petitioner vide letter dated:01.02.2000 requested the Chief Medical Officer that the documents have already been furnished by him on 11.11.98 and thereafter again on 28.06.99, but even then no action was taken. The petitioner again on 01.05.2000 delivered these documents to Chief Medical Officer Pulwana along with his letter, copy whereof of is being annexed herewith. (Annexure -I)The facts stated, hereinabove clearly indicate that the respondents due to their inaction and negligence for which they have to, account for and are also liable to compensate the petitioners have deprived the petitioner of his legitimate dues. "
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at bar that during the pungency of .the inquiry the case of -the petitioner was settled but
petitioner is entitled to interest and prayed that interest be granted at
the rate of 18% from the date the petitioner was entitled to till the
date of release. And prayed that the compensation be also awarded in his
favor. Petitioner was entitled to pension from May, 1996 but the same has
been settled on 28.09.2000.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.