Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 14: High Court has recorded that the benefit of promotion and consequential monetary benefits of employees cannot be taken away in an arbitrary and whimsical manner without providing an opportunity of being heard to the affected person.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while recording that the benefits of promotion cannot be taken away from an employee without holding an enquiry. “Admittedly, in the present case, there is no such allegation about misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, thus by no stretch of imagination, consequential benefits can be taken at this belated stage after retirement of the petitioner”, he said.
The petitioner working in Srinagar Development Authority as Pump Operator approached the court challenging the letter issued by Examine/CAO, Local Fund Audit and Pensions, Srinagar whereby it was recommended the Financial Advisor/CAO, Srinagar Development Authority, Srinagar to effect the recovery from the petitioner-employee on account of his up gradation w.e.f 01.05.1994 till the date of his superannuation.
Since his retiral benefits were also withheld as such sought direction from the court that the concerned authorities be directed to release his all the pensionary benefits and all monetary benefits with interest on account of superannuation with all consequential benefits.
“This court is not inclined to allow the respondents to proceed further with the impugned letter, as much water has flown since then. The respondents are under legal obligation to treat the petitioner as retired as pump operator w.e.f. 01.05.1995 and release all the pensionary benefits with interest notwithstanding the impugned communication dated 15.10.2014”, Justice Nargal said.
“The respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as pump operator with effect from the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. 31.03.2014”, reads the direction.
Court has made it clear that in case, these directions are not complied within a period of eight weeks from the passing of this order, in that eventuality, the writ petitioner-Mohammad Ramzan Tantry shall be entitled to the interest @9 % per annum from the date the aforesaid benefits were due to the petitioner and denied by the respondents.
Court said the respondents have failed to explain as to how the upgradation of the petitioner-Tantry is contrary to the rules and, if so, against which rules. In absence of any specific stand by the respondents with regard to his upgradation, the impugned letter dated 15.10.2014 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
