‘Earned, not charity’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on man’s pension denial after 25 years of service

“Instead, the appellants continued to extract work from the respondent for over two decades and the benefits, he claims, are earned through long service and not granted as charity. Having failed to act in time and allowing him to retire honourably, the appellants cannot now challenge his initial appointment or subsequent regularisation,” the court said.

The authority concurred was challenging the trial court’s order, arguing that the employee was not entitled to any relief since he was allegedly illegally appointed in 1999, and his regularisation in 2007 was also illegal.

Findings

• Khan attained the age of retirement during the pendency of this petition.
• No proceedings were ever initiated by the authority concerned during his tenure.
• There is nothing on record to demonstrate that any judicial or departmental proceedings are currently pending against him.
• Khan was allowed to serve for nearly 25 years, and it is now too late for the authority concerned to contend that his appointment was “illegal”.
• Even if the appointment was illegal, the appropriate proceedings for termination of Khan’s services should have been initiated at an earlier point of time.
• While the authority concerned claims that all regularisations post-2000 are under investigation by the state crime branch, it is evident that after 14 years, the investigation remains unfinalised without any chargesheet being filed.
• The retired employee is entitled to interest on all retirement benefits and arrears at the rate of 6% per annum.
• The authority concerned should calculate the interest from the date the employee first became entitled to these benefits until the date of actual payment.

Arguments

• Government advocate Illyas N Laway argued that the trial court passed the order in favour of the employee without considering the submissions made on behalf of the authority concerned.

• It was further contended that the issue relating to illegal appointments was under investigation by the state crime branch, along with an enquiry conducted by the authority concerned, and that under such circumstances, the employee was not entitled to any relief.
• On the other hand, Khan’s counsel, advocate M A Beigh, submitted that no chargesheet has been filed against his client till date, and that the state never initiated any action against him during his service tenure and instead allowed him to attain superannuation.