CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 6 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 J&K CK 0015

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tashi Rabstan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Service Regulations Volume I — Article 242
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 4133 Of 2019, CM No. 8507 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 387 words

Tashi Rabstan, J

1.

The petitioner through the medium of instant petition is seeking direction to the respondents to settle the pension of the petitioner as per the last pay drawn by him at the time of superannuation and also pay the arrears of pension after re-fixing the same as per the last pay drawn by him and release the gratuity withheld by the respondents along with interest @ 18% per annum till the same is actually released and paid to the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner contends that the respondents are under legal obligation to settle his pension case as per the last pay drawn by him under Article 242 of CSR governing the subject and as per the mandate the average emoluments in respect of a government servant are to be taken into consideration on the basis of last ten months pay and pension and other benefits are to be fixed accordingly. He further contends that in similar cases the respondents have considered, but, ignored the same in case of the petitioner. Hence this petition on the grounds taken in it.

3.

The petitioner while placing reliance on Article 242 of CSR Volume- 1, submits that he has already made request in this regard to respondent No.4, but, all in vain. The petitioner submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied if respondent No.4 is called upon to take a decision on his request in light of the Article 242 of CSR Volume 1 and in view of other similar cases, which have already been settled by respondent No.4 within certain timeframe to which course, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is not averse to consider the same under rules. Their statements are taken on record.

4.

In view of the submissions made by the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation supported by relevant documents including the judgment, if any, passed in similar cases and implemented by respondent No.4 within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 within a period of six weeks thereafter.

5.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly, along with connected CM(s), if any.