A Division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that non-decision on Voluntary Retirement request cannot deprive an employee of pensionary benefits post-retirement.

Background Facts

The respondent was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer in the Department of Agriculture on 31.12.1983. He applied for leave on 17.04.2006, which was sanctioned up to 15.06.2006. However, he did not resume duty after the expiry of leave. He re-joined only on 20.10.2008. The period from 16.06.2006 to 19.10.2008 was treated as leave due to him. The respondent submitted an application on 15.01.2010 for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) with effect from 01.02.2010. However, his request remained pending with the department for a long period, and no decision was taken. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. His pensionary and retiral benefits were not released due to non-finalization of his VRS request.

Aggrieved, the respondent filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, which allowed the petition and directed the authorities to forward his case to the Principal Accountant General for grant of pensionary benefits and further directed to regularize the period of absence from 20.10.2008 to 31.03.2020 to ensure smooth processing of pensionary benefits.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner UT of J&K filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 20.02.2025.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the Tribunal had erroneously and without any justification directed the petitioners to condone the unauthorized absence of the respondent w.e.f. 15.01.2010 till 31.03.2020 (retirement) so as to enable the respondent to avail the pensionary benefits admissible to him under law. It was further contended that petitioners are not averse to treat the respondent in the service of Government till 15.01.2010 for all purposes including for the purpose of grant of pension.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the inaction of the petitioners deprived him of his pensionary benefits even after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. The respondent contended that the Tribunal’s direction to regularize the period and grant pensionary benefits was justified.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the respondent was in service and should be treated to be in service till 20.10.2008. The unauthorized absence from 21.10.2008 till the date of superannuation of the respondent i.e. 31.03.2020 is sought to be justified by the respondent on the ground that he had already applied for Voluntary Retirement. Therefore, the respondent was well within his right to assume that the same had been accepted and, therefore, did not attend his duties.

It was further observed that the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement which was made in the year 2010 remained undecided till 31.03.2020 when the respondent reached the age of his superannuation. It was held that the negligence and indolence exhibited by the petitioners cannot be ignored and lightly brushed aside. It was observed that the respondent took benefit of the indecisiveness shown by the petitioners and thought of not attending the duties. It was further observed by the court that the respondent has not opted to claim the benefit of service after 15.01.2010, submitting the voluntary retirement request. It was held by the court that the lapse on the part of the petitioners cannot deprive the respondent of his pensionary benefits for the service he had rendered.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of. The judgment of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that the respondent shall be deemed to have remained in service from 31.12.1983 till 20.10.2008/15.01.2010, subject to verification of actual working days. The petitioners were directed to process and release the pensionary benefits to the respondent within two months, and the Principal Accountant General was instructed to ensure disbursement of pension within the same period.

Case Name : UT of J & K & Ors vs Anil Sharma

Case No. : WP (C) No. 2246/2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Suneel Malhotra, GA

Counsel for the Respondents : Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Abhirash Sharma, Advocate