Point of Law: No resolution of the Board which confirms and adopts the JKSPDCL Employees Pension Rules or the JKSPDCL Group Superannuation Scheme. In the absence of it, the writ court is not justified in directing for the payment of pensionary/retiral dues to the respondent/petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Heard Mr. Irfan Andleeb, learned Dy. A.G. for the appellants and Mr. S.A. Makroo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mohammad Amin, Advocate, for the respondent.

2. The appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2020, passed by the writ court allowing W.P. (C) No. 2865/2019, Abdul Rashid Makroo vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, by which a writ in the nature of mandamus has been issued directing the appellants/respondents to release the pensionary/retiral benefits including gratuity etc. along with arrears thereof with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the respondent/petitioner, in accordance with the rules as are applicable to the employees of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

3. The respondent/petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court claiming direction for release of his pension which was fixed at the rate of Rs. 70158/- as on November, 2018 and to release the arrears of pension amounting to Rs. 39,34,216/- up to November, 2018, in terms of the Pension Scheme notified by the Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. The respondent/ petitioner also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on account of illegal withholding of his pension and for award of costs to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs and damages/compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the mental agony and loss caused to him.

4. The aforesaid writ petition was filed on the allegations that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 with the Jammu and Kashmir State Industrial Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as SIDCO. In the year 1995, he was posted on deputation in the Bureau of Public Enterprise as Financial Analyst. He was then sent on deputation vide order dated 7th August, 1997 to the Corporation. During his working with the Corporation though he continued to hold the post of Financial Analyst but vide order dated 29th August, 2001, his services were absorbed in the Corporation. The petitioner was promoted as the Chief General Manager in terms of the order dated 01.04.2008 and ultimately retired on 31.01.2014. He is entitled to pension and retiral dues with effect from the said date but the same have not been paid to him.

5. The claim of the respondent/petitioner was resisted on the ground that the Rules of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir as applicable to the Government employees are not applicable to the respondent/petitioner. The Corporation has not yet formulated any scheme for pension. The respondent/petitioner under the absorption order is not entitle to the same benefit as are available to the Government employees of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

6. The forth respondent in the writ petition i.e. LIC filed objections to the writ petition stating that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been entered into between the LIC and the Corporation on 13th June, 2018 and a policy was allotted to the Corporation. The Corporation has contributed the initial amount of Rs. 2,96,50,000/- on 19th June, 2018 and thereafter Rs. 3,50,00,000/- on 28.03.2019 against the aforesaid policy. On the intimation of the Corporation, the LIC had started paying monthly pension to one Ghulam Qadir Wani with effect from July, 2018 but since the Corporation has not directed the LIC to release any pension in favour of the respondent/petitioner, the LIC is unable to disburse any pension to him.

7. The writ court by the impugned order in directing for payment and release of the pensionary and retiral benefits to the respondent/petitioner broadly assigned two grounds to support the above direction.

The first ground was that one of the employees of the Corporation, Ghulam Qadir Wani, who had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2010, was granted pensionary benefits in the light of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 8th April, 2015 passed in SWP No. 184/2011 filed by him. The case o