No Pending Inquiry, No Provisional Pension: J&K High Court Upholds Full Retiral Benefits for Retired Principal

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the UT government’s challenge to a tribunal order directing full pension and gratuity to a retired polytechnic college principal, finding no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him at the time of superannuation.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, on 15 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory of J&K against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench. The Tribunal had directed the UT government to process and release the full pension and other post-retiral benefits of Firdous Ahmad Itoo, a retired Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Pulwama, within six weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment. The High Court found the Tribunal’s order fully in line with settled law: absent pending departmental or judicial proceedings, the government could not fall back on Article 168-D of the Civil Service Regulations to deny full pension or substitute it with a provisional one.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Firdous Ahmad Itoo had substantively held the post of Principal at Government Polytechnic College, Pulwama, and retired on superannuation with effect from 30 April 2024. After retirement, the UT government did not sanction his pension, offering no reason or justification to him.

The Skill Development Department subsequently issued Government Order No. 313 of 2024 dated 4 September 2024. That order granted Itoo only provisional pension and withheld other post-retiral benefits such as gratuity. Itoo challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 660/2024, seeking its quashing to the extent it denied him full pension and gratuity, and seeking release of all retiral benefits with interest and compensation.

The UT government contested the application before the Tribunal on the basis that, according to information received from the Crime Branch, Itoo’s name had surfaced as a suspect in FIR No. 11/2018 registered at Police Station, Economic Offences Wing, Srinagar, Crime Branch, Kashmir. An inquiry into alleged embezzlement at the Islamic University of Science and Technology was also stated to be contemplated against him.

The Tribunal allowed the application by an order dated 30 March 2026. It directed the UT government to process and release pension and other post-retiral benefits within six weeks, with interest at 6% per annum if the deadline was not met. The UT government and the Director, Skill Development Department then filed WP(C) No. 1619/2026 before the High Court, calling the Tribunal’s order into question.

The Legal Issue: What Triggers Article 168-D of the CSR

The central question was whether the mere registration of an FIR — without an active departmental or judicial proceeding — was enough to allow the government to withhold full pension and pay only provisional pension under Article 168-D of the Civil Service Regulations.

Itoo’s position before the Tribunal was that no judicial or departmental proceedings were pending against him at the time of retirement, and therefore the Government Order withholding his gratuity and full pension was without statutory authority. He also argued that the right to retiral benefits is a right to property protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and cannot be taken away without due process of law.

The UT government’s position relied entirely on the Crime Branch communication identifying Itoo as a suspect and the prospect of a future inquiry into events at IUST. It did not point to any departmental inquiry that had been formally instituted, nor to any pending judicial proceeding against him.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench examined the Tribunal’s reasoning and found it consistent with two binding precedents: the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone v. State of J&K and Ors., 2020:JKLHC:SGR:754, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010.

The bench held that the position of law is now well settled: unless departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted under Article 168-A of the CSR, the government cannot resort to Article 168-D to deny an employee full pension or pay only provisional pension. The bench stated that it had already elaborated on the meaning of “departmental proceedings” and “judicial proceedings” in Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone and found no need to restate that analysis.

The bench quoted at length from paragraph 14 of the Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone judgment, which set out the governing principle: pension and gratuity earned by an employee are property in nature. The right to property, while no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A and cannot be extinguished by executive instructions that lack statutory character. The only statutory route available to the government to deny pension or gratuity is strict compliance with Articles 168-A and 168-D of the CSR, and those provisions are triggered only where departmental or judicial proceedings were actually instituted at the time of retirement.

The earlier Division Bench had also clarified that the mere pendency of an FIR under investigation does not amount to “judicial proceedings” for the purpose of those CSR provisions. The bench in the present matter applied that conclusion directly to Itoo’s case.

On the facts, the bench found it indisputable that no judicial proceedings and no departmental inquiry were pending against Itoo. The Crime Branch communication identifying him as a suspect in FIR No. 11/2018 and the contemplated IUST inquiry did not cross the threshold required by the CSR. The bench therefore found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed WP(C) No. 1619/2026 on 15 July 2026, finding no merit in the petition. The Tribunal’s order of 30 March 2026 — directing the UT government to process and release full pension, gratuity, and other post-retiral benefits to Firdous Ahmad Itoo within six weeks of service of the judgment copy, failing which at 6% interest per annum — stands. The High Court marked the order as reportable and speaking.