Retired Employee Cannot Be Treated ‘Stepmotherly’ Merely Because He Did Not Approach The Court During His Active Service: J & K & L HC
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a retired employee cannot be treated “stepmotherly” merely on the ground that he did not approach the Court when he was in active service.
The University of Kashmir (University) was directed by the Single Bench of the High Court to provide the benefits of pay and grade, release arrears, and adjust the retirement benefits of the retired Deputy Registrar.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “By applying different yardstick and treating him stepmotherly, merely on the ground that the respondent herein did not approach this Court, when he was in active service, cannot be deprived of the fruits of the said judgment, wherein, benefit was extended to a similarly situated employee by accepting and implementing the said judgment, more particularly when the respondent has filed representation(s) prior to his retirement and his case was recommended by the University authorities as well”
Advocate Asif Maqbool represented the appellants, while Advocate Shakir Haqani appeared for the respondent.
The retired employee had filed a writ petition to quash the order granting him a promotion so that he could benefit from a higher grade and other retirement benefits. The University however contended that there was a delay in challenging the promotion order and hence seeking benefits was unjustified.
The Court rejected the University’s argument regarding the temporary nature of the promotion granted to the retired employee. The University argued that his promotion was temporary and subject to charge allowances, indicating that it was not a substantive promotion but merely an arrangement to fill a temporary charge. However, the Court stated that such an argument “cannot sustain the test of law on the touchstone of equality clause.”
“Once, the said benefit of retrospective promotion has been accorded to a co-employee who was similarly situated, then the ground urged by the appellants that since the placement of the respondent was not substantive and by way of charge allowance, loses its significance and the respondent herein by no stretch of imagination could be discriminated,” the Court remarked.
The Court explained that the temporary nature of the promotion did not justify denying the retired employee benefits that were extended to others in a similar position.
Consequently, the Court held that there was no infirmity with the judgment of the Single bench and upheld their judgment.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: University of Kashmir & Ors. v. Saif-Ud-Din Mir
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Asif Maqbool
Respondent: Advocate Shakir Haqani
