SRINAGAR: In a significant ruling reaffirming that pension is a constitutional right and not a government largesse, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the Union Territory administration’s challenge to an order directing the release of full pension and other post-retirement benefits to a retired Polytechnic College Principal, holding that such benefits cannot be withheld merely because an employee is under suspicion when no departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings are pending.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and its Skill Development Department, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the government to process and release the retiral dues of Firdous Ahmad Itoo, a former Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Pulwama.
The judgment was delivered on July 15, 2026.
The Union Territory was represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway, while Advocate Sheikh Mohammad Faisal appeared for the respondent, Firdous Ahmad Itoo.
The case arose after the government challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, on March 30, 2026, in OA No. 660/2024, whereby the Tribunal had directed the authorities to release Itoo’s pension and other post-retirement benefits within six weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at six per cent per annum.
According to the court record, Firdous Ahmad Itoo retired as Principal of Government Polytechnic College, Pulwama, on April 30, 2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, instead of sanctioning his regular pension and retiral benefits, the government issued an order on September 4, 2024, granting him only provisional pension while withholding gratuity and other retirement dues.
Aggrieved by the decision, Itoo approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the government order insofar as it denied him full retiral benefits. He also sought release of the withheld amount along with interest and compensation.
Before the Tribunal, Itoo argued that there were neither judicial proceedings nor departmental proceedings pending against him and, therefore, there was no legal justification for withholding his earned pension and gratuity. He further contended that pension constituted a property right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
neither judicial proceedings nor departmental proceedings were pendingThe government defended its action by informing the Tribunal that information received from the Crime Branch indicated that Itoo had surfaced as a suspect in FIR No. 11/2018 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Kashmir, and that an inquiry relating to alleged embezzlement in the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) was contemplated against him.
However, the Tribunal found that there was no judicial proceeding, criminal trial or departmental inquiry pending against the retired officer and held that the government had no authority to deprive him of his pension and gratuity merely on the basis of suspicion.
The Tribunal consequently directed the authorities to release all retiral benefits.
, or departmental inquiry pending against the retired officer, and held that the government had no authority to deprive him of his pension and gratuity on the basis of mere Rejecting the government’s challenge, the High Court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the settled legal position laid down by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
The Bench observed that the Tribunal’s judgment was fully consistent with the Division Bench decision in Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone v. State of J&K (2020) as well as the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991).
“It is now well settled that unless departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted under Article 168-A, the resort to Article 168-D of the CSR cannot be taken and the employee cannot be denied full pension or granted only the provisional pension,” the Bench held.
The court further noted that the meaning of “judicial proceedings” and “departmental proceedings” had already been elaborately explained in the earlier judgment in Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone and saw no reason to revisit that interpretation.
In one of the most significant observations, the Division Bench reproduced paragraph 14 of the judgment in Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Lone, reiterating that pension and gratuity are protected constitutional rights.
The High Court quoted: “The hard earned benefit in the shape of pension and gratuity that accrues to an employee is in the nature of ‘property’. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any more but it continues to be a Constitutional right and cannot be taken away without due process of law, as is provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.”
The court further reiterated that such rights cannot be taken away through executive instructions but only in accordance with statutory provisions.
The quoted judgment also emphasised: “The pension or gratuity can be denied to a retired employee only in accordance with the statutory provisions of Articles 168-A and 168-D of the CSR.”
The Bench found that the government’s case rested only on the assertion that the respondent had surfaced as a suspect and that an inquiry was contemplated.
The court held that this was legally insufficient.
“Indisputably, there are no judicial proceedings or departmental inquiry pending against the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he cannot be deprived of his hard earned post retiral benefits, including full pension and gratuity,” the Bench ruled.
The judges observed that the statutory framework permits withholding of pension only where departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings have actually been instituted before retirement. A mere pending investigation or contemplation of inquiry does not satisfy that legal requirement.
Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, the High Court dismissed the government’s writ petition in its entirety.
“For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,” the Bench concluded.
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that governments cannot withhold pension and retirement benefits merely because allegations exist or an employee is under investigation unless the statutory conditions prescribed under the Civil Service Regulations are fulfilled.
The judgment is likely to have wider implications for retired government employees whose pensionary benefits are withheld despite the absence of formal departmental proceedings or judicial action at the time of their retirement.
