AB. MAJID GURKOO Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned communication no. PNR-V/S-1/12-13/37381/2333-85 dated 21.01.2013 addressed to the Executive Engineer Electric Division Rajbagh, Srinagar, whereby a process for recovery on account of excess pay and allowances drawn by petitioner is directed to be recovered out of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the petitioner, besides also petitioner seeks direction for settlement of his post retrial benefits on the basis of order of superannuation dated Sept., 2012.

(2.) The Petitioner has been engaged as labour and came to be regularised as Lineman in the respondent department and after serving in the department with dedication reached to the age of superannuation and ultimately retired on Sept., 2012. It is submitted that instead of finalising the pension case, the respondents issued the aforesaid communication, whereby the respondents sought recovery of excess amount drawn by the petitioner during his service tenure. Feeling aggrieved of the action of respondents 1 to 4, petitioner challenges the same inter alia on the grounds detailed out in the petition.

(3.) On notice respondents appeared and submitted objections, respondent no. 4 in his reply stated that the petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that respondent is pension authorising agency while as the pension sanctioning authority is the parent department of the petitioner and the grievances put forth by the petitioner is purely an administrative in nature and required to be looked into and addressed by the respondent 1 to 3 other than the answering respondent. It is further submitted that the role of answering respondent is limited and has to authorise the pensionary benefits as and when it is sanctioned by the concerned Head of the Department under rules. It is submitted that as and when the pension case of the petitioner is forwarded to the answering respondent, the same will be settled as expeditiously as possible.