Delay In Deciding On Voluntary Retirement Cannot Deprive Employee Of Pensionary Benefits: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while granting relief to an employee whose request for voluntary retirement was kept pending for 10 years held that such delay cannot deprive him from claiming retiral benefits.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the Application directed the Petitioners to forward the case of the Respondent to the Principal Accountant General for grant of pensionary benefits with immediate effect.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed, "Be that as it may, the fact remains that the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement which was made in the year 2010 remained undecided till 31.03.2020 when the respondent reached the age of his superannuation. The negligence and indolence exhibited by the petitioners cannot be ignored and lightly brushed aside. The respondent, thus took benefit of the indecisiveness shown by the petitioners and thought of not attending the duties. Being aware of the legal position, the respondent has, before us, very fairly not opted to claim the benefit of service after 15.01.2010."

The Petitioner was represented by Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra, while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma.

Facts of the Case

The Respondent was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer in the Department of Agriculture in 1983. In 2006, he applied for grant of leave, which was sanctioned and granted by the competent authority. However, the Respondent overstayed his leave. The said period of absence was treated as leave of whatever kind due to the Respondent. In 2010, the Respondent applied for Voluntary Retirement. The request of the respondent for Voluntary Retirement remained under process and consideration of the petitioners for pretty long time and it was only in July, 2023, when the petitioners approached the Principal Accountant General in respect of the request of the Respondent for Voluntary Retirement, it came to be revealed that the Respondent had attained the age of superannuation w.e.f. 2020. It is in these circumstances, neither the request of the Petitioner for Voluntary Retirement could be accepted by the Petitioners in time nor was he formally retired on superannuation. This impacted the release of retiral benefits in favour of the Respondent.

The impugned judgment was challenged by the Petitioners, primarily on the ground that the Tribunal erroneously and without any justification directed the Petitioners to condone the unauthorized absence of the Respondent so as to enable the Respondent to avail the pensionary benefits admissible to him under law.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that the negligence and indolence exhibited by the Petitioners in keeping the request of the Respondent pending for a long period cannot be ignored and lightly brushed aside.

"There is, though, a dispute as to whether the respondent has performed his duties w.e.f. 21.10.2008 to 15.01.2010, yet, that dispute cannot come in the way of this Court to dispose of this petition on the broad consensus arrived at by both the sides", the Court observed.

It thus directed that the Respondent shall be deemed to be in service of the Government from 1983 to 2008/2010, and the actual date up to which the Respondent performed his duties shall be subject to verification by the Government by reference to the record.

The judgment of the Tribunal was accordingly modified.

Cause Title: UT of J & K vs. Anil Sharma

Appearances:

Petitioner- Government Advocate Suneel Malhotra

Respondent- Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma, Advocate Abhirash Sharma

Click here to read/ download Order