Central Administrative Tribunal
Ghulam Mohi UD Din Ganaie vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 22 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR Order Sheet Item no.: 13 O.A./346/2024 (SRINAGAR) [ RECOVERY ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] With MODIFICATION OF ORDER Along With O.A./1059/2021 DATE OF BIRTH Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 21 Order Dated: 22/10/2026 GHULAM MOHI UD DIN GANAIE Vs HOME DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : S.A.MAKROO - Sr. Adv. WITH RAAHIL NOOR
For Respondent(s) Advocate : RAIS UD DIN GANAI - DAG, BIKRAM DEEP SINGH VIA VIRTUAL MODE Order of The Tribunal 01/ Perusal of averments made in this O.A reveal that the matter pertains to release of pension and allied benefits in favour of the petitioner. 02/ In terms of order dated 23-09-2026, the respondents were directed to release the amount to the petitioner, however, after retaining the alleged disputed amount, which would secure their interests as well. 02/ It goes without saying that pension is not a bounty, it is a right of an employee and this assertion has even attained status of a constitutional right under article 300- A. 03/ Ordinarily, order dated 23-09-2026 ought to have been complied with in its letter and spirit, when learned counsel for the petitioner had even consented to the retention of the disputed amount. Denial of release of undisputed amount certainly violates article 21 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that every public servant has to reach the day of superannuation and it is for this reason a pensioner deserves a soft gloves attitude on the part of his employer. Denial of legitimately earned pension and related benefits are not only violative of service laws but also, in my humble estimation, it is violative of human rights of an employee/pensioner. 04/ Heard learned counsel for the parties. 05/ It is expected that the respondents will consider release of legitimately earned provisional pension of the petitioner and related benefits with arrears, of course, after retaining the alleged disputed amount, as mentioned in the order impugned herein. To this effect, the petitioner is directed to file an undertaking before the competent authority that he will be bound by the ultimate decision of this petition.
06/ It is made clear that, for compliance of this order, all the respondents shall cooperate so that release of pension and its allied benefits to the petitioner are not delayed any further, however, subject to the conditions stipulated in this order supra. It is further provided that any delay in doing the needful entitles the petitioner to the interest in accordance with law. 07/ List for consideration on 04-12-2026. This order shall remain subject to final outcome of the O.A. M. S. Latif Member (J) Tariq Mota ( ps consultant )