CAT seeks compliance; asks top officer to remain present

Srinagar, Oct 7: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has ordered J&K’s Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest Department to appear before it on November 9, should its directive regarding the pensionary benefits of a retired employee not be complied with in letter and spirit.

A division bench comprising M. S. Latif (Member J) and Prasant Kumar (Member A) mandated the officer's personal appearance in response to a contempt plea filed by retired forest employee Z. A. Ahanger.

Ahanger is seeking the implementation of a judgment passed by the tribunal on May 8 last year, which directed the authorities to calculate his pension and other retirement benefits based on his superannuation date of June 30, 2019.

The court noted that this calculation was to be completed by the authorities within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. “The orders issued in the contempt petition further reveal that the petitioner has not even been paid his provisional pension, let alone his other retirement benefits as ordered in the judgment dated May 8, 2023.”

In response to the government's contention that Ahanger's date of birth (DOB) is recorded as June 11, 1959, in some documents issued by J&K BOSE, while another document states 1967, the tribunal clarified that it was focused solely on implementing the judgment passed on May 8, 2023, which has neither been reversed nor challenged by the respondents before any higher forum.

The tribunal stated that the judgment has attained finality.

In their statement of facts, the authorities referenced Government Order No. 526-FST of 1997, dated December 12, 1997, which indicated that Ahanger was appointed on a compassionate basis. However, this order actually pertained to the grant of 15 days’ half pay leave to R. M. Saxena, the then Director of the J&K Forest Protection Force, Kashmir.

The tribunal remarked that even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that the December 12, 1997, order did not grant age relaxation to Ahanger, this argument could not hold, as it has been raised more than 27 years after the fact, and after Ahanger's retirement.

“Moreover, during the entire service period of the petitioner (Ahanger), the respondents never raised any objections regarding the issuance of that order; thus, it is not open to them to raise the issue now,” the tribunal stated.

The tribunal referenced a High Court judgment upheld by the Supreme Court, which underscores that “when, during the entire service period of an employee, no objections regarding their appointment were ever raised, it is not open for the authorities to contest the issue after the employee's retirement or death.”

“In this case, the perusal of the statement of facts and compliance reveals that the issue has been raised after 27 years, and after the retirement of the petitioner. Such a move would violate established principles of law and judicial pronouncements,” the tribunal concluded.