Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4522

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J), Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A)
Prof. Rajinder Gupta – Appellant
Versus
University of Jammu – Respondent
TA/208/2025|TA/217/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahil Raja
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Sethi, Mr. Ajay Abrol

Post-retirement gratuity deduction invalid without disciplinary proceedings and due process; re-employment after superannuation is discretionary, not a right, judicially unenforceable absent arbitrariness.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Retiral Benefits - Gratuity - Deduction from gratuity post-retirement without regular disciplinary proceedings, charge-sheet, enquiry or determination by competent authority fixing pecuniary liability held illegal - Internal committee reports cannot substitute lawful determination of misconduct or pecuniary loss - Retiral dues particularly gratuity cannot be treated as open reservoir for post-retirement recoveries absent due process - Principles of natural justice violated - Rule 168-AA of Civil Service Regulations does not confer unguided power for recovery without properly constituted proceedings and legally sustainable finding. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Service Law - Post-Retirement Re-employment - Not a vested right but discretionary - Statute uses enabling language permitting re-employment where academic exigencies require or continuation till end of session at Vice-Chancellor's discretion - No mandamus to command re-employment where provisions leave matter to administrative satisfaction - Consideration of claim by competent authority without patent mala fides or arbitrariness not amenable to judicial interference - Departmental non-recommendation, reconsideration and exploration of alternatives sufficient - Past practice or grant to others does not create enforceable right - Negative equality not recognized - Utilization of services post-retirement in committees or supervision does not confer deemed re-employment absent formal order. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
Applicant superannuated as professor - In one case, amount deducted from gratuity due to alleged irregular book purchases during additional charge as director of academic centre, liability arising from later court decrees against university - No payment made during tenure, relieved from charge prior to issues - Show cause notice post-retirement, deduction effected without enquiry - In other case, claimed deemed re-employment for five months post-retirement due to utilization in academic work, or consideration for longer re-employment/extension based on statute, past practice - Department did not recommend, Vice-Chancellor considered and declined after reconsideration.

Findings of Court:
In first case, deduction quashed, amount directed to be refunded within 12 weeks - In second case, claims for re-employment/extension rejected, departmental resolutions/endorsement upheld.

Issues: Whether post-retirement deduction from gratuity permissible without disciplinary proceedings; whether re-employment post-superannuation enforceable as right or mandamus issuable for consideration/grant thereof.

Ratio Decidendi: Gratuity deduction invalid sans due process and adjudication of liability; re-employment discretionary, judicial interference unwarranted absent arbitrariness/mala fides after due consideration.

Result: TA 208/2025 allowed; TA 217/2025 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. transfer of writ petitions from high court (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's pleaded service history and facts (Para 3)
3. respondents' defenses and preliminary objections (Para 4)
4. separate disposal of distinct transfer applications (Para 5 , 26)
5. no recovery from gratuity without due process (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. re-employment discretionary, not a right (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.1117/2018 & 2317/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.208/2025 & 217/2025 respectively by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

1. TA/208/2025

a) “WRIT OF CERTIORARI:- So as to quash the communication No. No.Adm/TW/18/75-79, dated 05.04. 2018 Annexure-V to this writ petition passed by the Respondent University Jammu that thereby an amount of Rs. 1,01,730/- (Rupees one lac one thousand seven hundred and thirty only) has been deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and against the norms. The impugned communication may please be set aside in the interests of justice.

b) WRIT OF MANDAMUS: So as to Command and direct the respondents to release the retained / deducted gratuity amount of Rs.1,01,730/- (Rupees one lac one thousand seven hundred and thirty only) with interest in favour of the petitioner in the interests of justice.

c) FURTHER WRIT OF MANDAMUS: So as to Command and direct the respondents to pay the interest @ 15% to the withheld amount of gratuity w.e.f. 28.02.2017 to 16.04.2018 which has been withheld by the respondents illegally, unlawfully, without any basis as such, the petitioner be held entitled for the interest on the withheld amount of gratuity and direct the respondents to release the same in favour of petitioner in the interests of justice.

AND d) Any other Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

TA/217/2025

a. WRIT OF MANDAMUS: So as to Command and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner as deemed in service of re- employment of five months as the respondents has utilized the service of the petitioner after his retirement w.e.f 28.2.2017 to 31.7.2017, the post facto re-employment order in favour of petitioner with all consequential benefit is required to be restored, in the interest of justice.

b. WRIT OF MANDAMUS:- So as to Command and direct the respondent to decide and consider the case of the petitioner for three years re-employment in the university of Jammu Department of Economics being eligible and entitled under norms on the basis of more than 35 years service rendered by petitioner as professor, in the interest of justice.

OR c. WRIT OF MANDAMUS:- So as to Command and direct the respondent to decide and consider the case of petitioner for two years extension of service at the offsite campus Udhampur being eligible entitled for the same as per norms and university council decision on the same analogy of professor M.Y Shah of Kashmir University by the concurrence of the financial advisor university respondent no 6 issued by the Chancellor of the universities, as such the case of the petitioner is required to be considered on the same analogy.

d. WRIT OF MANDAMUS:- So as to Command and direct the respondent to release all the pensionary benefits gratuity, earned leave encashment, commuted pension, GPF etc which has been illegally withheld w.e.f 1.3.2017 as on date with 15% interest over the total amount withheld by the respondents illegally and unlawfully, in the interest of justice.

e. WRIT OF CERTIORARI: So as to quash the resolution dated 30.12.2016 of the faculty Economics department and resolution dated 6.1.2017 adopted by the DAC Economics Depart

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4522

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J), Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A)Prof. Rajinder Gupta – AppellantVersusUniversity of Jammu – RespondentTA/208/2025|TA/217/2025

Post-retirement gratuity deduction invalid without disciplinary proceedings and due process; re-employment after superannuation is discretionary, not a right, judicially unenforceable absent arbitrariness.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J), Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A)
Prof. Rajinder Gupta – Appellant
Versus
University of Jammu – Respondent
TA/208/2025|TA/217/2025