feroz ahmad mir vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2025

1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:

a. The impugned Government Order No. 267-JK(JSD) of 2025 dated 28.11.2025 be quashed and the respondents be directed to release forthwith the final pension, gratuity, GPF, leave encashment and all other retiral benefits due to the applicant, along with appropriate interest for the inordinate and unjustified delay.

b. Any other direction/order be issued which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

2. What stems out of the O.A. is that the applicant superannuated from his active service on 31.03.2023 and he was placed under suspension in connection with an FIR No. 12/2025. It is stated that in the departmental proceedings arising out of the same allegations, the applicant was exonerated and the applicant was accordingly reinstated in service. Vide Govt. Order No. 162-JK (HUD) of 2024 dated 08.08.2024, the entire period of suspension of the applicant from 21.06.2021 to 28.03.2023 was regularized and he was treated as 'on duty for all purposes', with no penalty imposed. It has also been stated that despite the conclusion of the departmental proceedings in favour of the applicant and regularization of the suspension period, the respondents failed to release the applicant's pension, gratuity, GPF and other retiral benefits, which necessitated filing of the O.A./406/2023 and the said O.A. was also disposed of on 24.07.2025.

3. It is stated that the respondents, while considering the case of the applicant, had passed the impugned order, by virtue of which the applicant's case has been rejected. The applicant has now assailed the order of rejection on various grounds as have been assailed in the O.A.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mian Tufail Ahmad submits that since the applicant has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings there is no reason for the respondents to deprive the applicant of his pension and other pensionary benefits. He submits that in view of the law laid in the cases titled as Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, 2020 (9) SCC 636, P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar 1996 (9) SCC 1 as also Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal 2011 (3) SCC 581, wherein he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and that, once an employee is exonerated departmentally on identical allegations, adverse civil consequences cannot be imposed merely because criminal proceedings are pending".

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that any such denial would amount to a colorable exercise of power intended to defeat the judicial mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same would be violative of Article 14, 21 and 300(a) of the Constitution of India. He submits that since the applicant has superannuated in the year 2023 and has a dependent family, including his grown- up daughters of marriageable age, and all the members of the family are dependent upon the pension and pensionary benefits of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that pension and pensionary benefits are no more a bounty. They are a right of an employee which he earns by giving his youth to the public service. To this effect, learned counsel for the applicant in order to buttress his arguments has referred to the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as K. V. Janakiraman v. Union of India. He further submits that even if there is an FIR pending which dates back to the year 2015 and already it has been pending past 10 years, and the culmination of the FIR may even take more decades but that would not mean that the applicant or his family would suffer once he has been effectively allowed to retire from active service.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise the contents of the FIR are not related to any pecuniary loss which has been caused by the alleged act of the applicant or the other accused persons involved in FIR.

8. Heard.

9. Issue notice. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG appears and accepts notice for the respondents who is granted four weeks' time to file his detailed response. In the meantime, the applicant is at liberty to move a representation before the competent authority for seeking release of a part of his earned pensionary benefits. The competent authority shall consider the representation of the applicant, if filed, within the notice period by passing a speaking order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred above.

10. Alteration/modification on motion.

11. List on 09.03.2026. M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )