Sr. No. 99 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No.:-CCP(S) No. 456/2024 in LPASW No. 100/2009 Madan Lal …. Petitioner(s)

Through:- None.

V/s Girdhar Aramane Defence and Ors. …..Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC.

.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

08.12.2025

1. In the instant contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 passed in SWP No. 569/2001 and while disposing of the same, the Court has observed that the disability of the petitioner being 20% is, as such, entitled to disability pension and consequently, quashed the order under challenge dated 01.08.2000 with a direction to the respondents to grant disability pension in favour of the petitioner from the date he was discharged from service, with a further direction to complete the said exercise within a period of four months from the date a copy of the order is served upon them, with a further direction that in case, the disability pension in favour of the petitioner is not released within the said period of four months, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum.

2. Compliance report/statement of facts has been filed by the respondents, accompanying with an order dated 13.01.2011 issued for and on behalf of Dir AG/PS-4(Legal) dated 13.01.2011, a perusal whereof would reveal that the respondents/contemnors in furtherance of the implementation of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 have ordered sanction for grant of disability pension in favour of the petitioner for two years w.e.f 03.11.2000, i.e., the date invalided out of service along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on arrears, requiring the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad Utter Pradesh to issue necessary PPO immediately and also to work out the amount involved with an intimation, so that ex post-facto sanction for “Charged Expenditure” can be accorded. The aforesaid order dated 13.01.2011 is followed by issuance of PPO Order No. DE/0986/2010 issued by the Principal CDA (Pensions), Allahabad in favour of the petitioner and also addressed to the Punjab National Bank, Main Branch Aknoor Jammu with an endorsement therein the said PPO that interest @ 7.5% per annum as well is payable to the pensioner/petitioner herein. However, further perusal of the statement of facts filed and the annexures appended thereto including Communication dated 31.10.2023 transpires that, seemingly, the respondents/contemnors in disregard to the judgment and order have subjected the petitioner to re-assessment of his medical condition on 04.05.2011, wherein the medical authority has assessed the disability of the pensioner @ nil.

3. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, coupled with the fact that the respondents in terms of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2009 were never ever authorized to subject the petitioner to re-assessment of his disability, but has directed payment of disability pension qua 20% disability of the petitioner the respondents could not have done so.

4. Under these circumstances, the respondents/contemnors, as such, are directed to file an affidavit as to how and under what authority or rule the petitioner has been subjected to the re-assessment of his disability.

5. List again on 27.01.2026.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI)

JUDGE JAMMU

08.12.2025 2025.12.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this do cument