1. A short, but significant question—whether the orders passed by Lord Chief Justice, Jammu & Kashmir High Court in terms of the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations read with the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 require administrative ap#31;proval —is involved in this petition. A resume of the underlying facts is necessitated and may be given hereunder.

2. Petitioner was a member of the High Court Staff, working as Private Secretary. In recognition of the outstanding performance by the petitioner, the Chief Justice sanctioned and granted two advance increments in his favour in the grade of Rs. 7500-250-12000 vide High Court order No. 501 dated 01.09.2001. The peti#31;tioner, thereafter, in due course was promoted initially as Principal Private Secre#31;tary, then as Secretary and ultimately as Joint Registrar. He was to retire in the afternoon of 31st January, 2009 on attaining the age of 58 years. However, in terms of High Court order Nos. 790 dated 22.12.2008,1066 dated 24.03.2009 and No. 414 dated 12.08.2009, the Chief Justice, in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 read with Article 226(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, ordered retention of the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 years and, accordingly, extended his date of retirement by two years. The petitioner ultimately retired on attaining the age of 60 years in the afternoon of 31st January, 2011.

3. Consequent upon retirement of the petitioner, the High Court, impleaded herein as respondent No. 6 through its Registrar General, vide communication No. 12106 dated 01.02.2011 forwarded the petitioner's pension papers to the Accountant General, J&K, Srinagar. In response thereto, the Senior Accounts Officer (PNR) of the Accountant General, respondent No. 4 herein, addressed communication No. PNR-4/S-1/10-11/20797/192-93 dated 16.06.2011 to the Registrar General, High Court of J&K. In the said communication, respondent No. 4 intimated to, and directed, respondent No. 6 as under:

i) that the retired Joint Registrar has been extended the benefit of two advance increments w. e. f. 09/02 without the approval of Administrative Department which may either be obtained or the excess pay and allowances drawn on this account worked out and intimated to this office for effecting recovery;

ii) in terms of Article 226(1) of CSR Vol-I a Government servant can be permitted to remain in service on public grounds after issuing of the sanction from the Government. It may please be intimated whether the said order was issued with the concurrence of State Government. If so, a copy of the order may be send to this office for further necessary action;

iii) Meanwhile, pensionary benefits are being au thorized on due pay and on the basis of actual age of superannuation.

4. Respondents 1 to 4, consequently, fixed the pension of the petitioner and other retiral benefits on the basis of his length of service and emoluments taking his date of retirement as 31.01.2009, excluding the two years' extended service rendered by the petitioner upto 31.01.2011, and issued PPO No. 221119365 dated 20.05.2011 addressed to the concerned Treasury Officer for payment of monthly pension at Rs. 12693 with effect from 01.02.2011. On the same basis, his commuted value of pension payable was fixed at Rs. 499211.00. However, his gratuity was withheld, ostensibly, for purposes of effecting recovery of so called excess pay and allowances drawn in his favour on account of the two advance increments sanctioned and granted in his favour with effect from 09/2002.

5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication dated 16.06.2011 of respondent No. 4 and the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not honouring the orders passed by the Lord Chief Justice.

6. Respondents 1 to 4, i.e., the authorities of the Accountant General, despite numerous opportunities have cho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document