GHULAM NABI BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the submissions that the petitioners 2 to 4 are serving in the J&K; Police Department as selection grade officers and that petitioner No. 1 has retired. In pursuance of Rule 13(C) of the revised Pay Rules 1982, promulgated vide SRO 91, all the selection grade police officers were given two increments. This benefit was continued in terms of SRO 370 of 1987. However, In terms of SRO 75 issued in 1992, the benefit of the two increments was stopped retrospectively with effect from Ist April, 1987. In these changed circumstances, the main grievance of the petitioners at present is that, the respondents have directed recovery of the pecuniary benefits in the shape of two increments extended to them in pursuance of SRO 91 of 1992. In case of petitioner No. 1, who has retired from service, SRO 75 of 1992 is being given effect to by stopping the retiremental benefits accruing in his favour whereas, in respect of other petitioners, the recovery is being made in the normal course. The petitioners submit that, on similar facts, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with the issue involved in the present writ petition, in SWP No. 860/93, Abdul Khaliq Want and Ors. v. State of J&K; and Ors., decided on 14.9.1995 quashed the order of recovery of pecuniary benefits given to the selection grade Head Constables and declared SRO 75 of 1992 as illegal. On these submissions, it is prayed that direction be given to the respondents not to make recovery on this account from the petitioners as has been done in case of other similarly placed employees of the Police Department.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents, as projected by Mr. G. Mustaffa, G.A is that the State is not in favour of in making the recoveries in view of the direction given by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition Abdul Khaliq Wani and Ors. v. State of J&K; and Ors. (supra).

(3.) VIDE order dated 6th February, 2003, direction was given to the above -named Accounts Officer, to explain the reason for non -compliance of the court order and to justify the objection taken by him in his communication dated 19th February, 2002. Although, time and opportunity was given to file objections, but till date no objections have been filed. However, the stand taken by Mr. Naik is that the objection has been raised because of the direction given by the Director General of Police, J&K;, vide Office memo dated 31.3.1997 to make recovery of the amount withdrawn by these officers in pursuance of SRO 91 of 1981. Learned counsel has in this connection projected the relevant portion of the Office memo, paragraph 4 of which is reproduced below: