Vishno Devi vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Others

Tashi Rabstan, J

Notice to the respondents. Mr. K.D.S.Kotwal, Dy.AG waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI for respondent No.4.

The petitioner through the medium of instant petition is seeking quashment of GPO No. 121991204 dated 02.07.2019 to the extent it provides for withholding an amount of Rs.3,01,814/- out of the total gratuity payable to her husband wrongly, illegally, arbitrary and in patent repugnance to the Regulations 242 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations of 1956 as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih and others providing that no recoveries could be made from Class IV employees and on the analogy and principle on which such facility came to be provided to many similarly circumstanced employees in the Department; and with a direction to the respondents to release all the retiral benefits including the gratuity and pension in favour of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by his husband at the time of his superannuation and to pay the arrears of the pension while taking into consideration Rule 242 of the Civil Services Regulations of 1956 read with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab V Rafiq Masih and others passed in Civil Appeal No.11527/2014 on 18.12.2014.

It is contended that the husband of the petitioner Jagdish Raj has been the employee of the PHE Department, Govt of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner contends that the respondents are under legal obligation to settle the pension case of his husband as per the last pay drawn 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. She 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.

The petitioner while placing reliance on Article 242 of CSR Volume-1, submits that she has already made request in this regard to respondent No.4, but, all in vain. The petitioner further submits that she 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 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are not averse to this proposition, except for their assertions that the respondents be directed to do the needful in terms of the law and the rules governing the field. Their statements are taken on record.

In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 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.

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