Srinagar, Mar 3, KDC: A retired Jammu and Kashmir government officer, who was officially shown as “dead” in government records since 2001, has finally secured justice after 25 years. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, set aside the erroneous entry, ordered correction of records, directed grant of notional promotion and refixation of pensionary benefits, and imposed ₹50,000 in costs on the J&K Government for what it termed a grave administrative lapse.
While allowing a Transfer Application (TA), the Bench comprising Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (Judicial), and Ram Mohan Johri, Member (Administrative), observed that the case “reflects not a routine service dispute but a glaring instance of administrative arbitrariness resulting in grave injustice to a retired government servant for no fault of his own.”
According to details, the applicant, Bhushan Lal Munshi, a retired District Agriculture Officer, had approached the Tribunal seeking correction of an entry in Government Order No. 279-Agri of 2008 dated 07.10.2008 and grant of notional promotion as Chief Agriculture Officer/Deputy Director Agriculture from 01.07.2001.
As recorded in the order, the factual position was undisputed: the applicant “continued in service till 31.12.2002 and retired on superannuation as District Agriculture Officer.” Yet, in the 2008 Government Order, he was “shown as having expired on 15.06.2001, i.e., prior to his actual retirement.”
The Tribunal held in unequivocal terms: “Declaring a living employee as ‘expired’ before his retirement is not merely an innocuous clerical mistake; it is a fundamental factual error with serious civil consequences, as it directly deprived the applicant of consideration for promotion.”
What weighed heavily with the Bench was the department’s own admission. Referring to a communication dated 17.09.2009, the Tribunal noted that the authorities had acknowledged that the applicant was wrongly shown as expired, recorded that he was eligible for promotion with effect from 01.07.2001, and assured issuance of a corrigendum.
“Once such an admission is made on record by the competent authority, the respondents were under a legal and moral obligation to act upon it within a reasonable time,” the Tribunal said, adding that their failure to do so for years together rendered their action “arbitrary and violative of the principles of fairness embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Rejecting the government’s defence that the 2008 order had been kept in abeyance and had lost relevance due to subsequent developments, the Tribunal termed the argument “wholly misconceived.”
“The applicant is not seeking reopening of seniority, unsettling of third-party rights, or revival of any illegal promotion. His claim is confined to correction of an admitted factual error and grant of notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted,” the order states.
The Bench further ruled that “correction of a false entry showing a living employee as dead is not dependent upon the outcome of any litigation. Such correction is a basic administrative duty and cannot be deferred indefinitely under the guise of pending disputes.”
On the issue of delay, the Tribunal squarely blamed the authorities, noting that despite admitting the mistake in 2009, they failed to issue the promised corrigendum or extend consequential benefits.
“A citizen cannot be penalized for the inaction of the State. Moreover, pensionary benefits are recurring in nature, and denial thereof on the basis of an admitted error constitutes a continuing wrong,” the Bench held, concluding that “equity, justice and good conscience clearly favour the applicant.”
In unusually strong observations, the Tribunal remarked that declaring a living employee as expired and compelling him to pursue repeated representations and litigation “shocks the judicial conscience.” While refraining from attributing motive, it noted that the circumstances gave rise to “a legitimate apprehension that such an error may have been committed to benefit some while unlawfully denying the rightful claim of the applicant.”
Allowing the application, the Tribunal directed the department to “issue a corrigendum” to Government Order No. 279-Agri of 2008, correcting the erroneous entry and recording that the applicant was alive and in service till his date of superannuation.
It also ordered that the applicant “shall be granted notional promotion to the post of Chief Agriculture Officer/Deputy Director Agriculture with effect from 01.07.2001, the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted.”
The Tribunal further ordered that the authorities “shall refix the pay of the applicant notionally, re-determine his pension and other retiral benefits, and release all consequential monetary benefits strictly in accordance with the applicable rules.”
The entire exercise, it said, is to be completed “within a period of 03 months” from receipt of the order.
In a rare move signalling judicial displeasure, the Tribunal also imposed costs.
“In view of the undue harassment, prolonged suffering and unnecessary litigation caused to the applicant for no fault of his, the respondents are directed to pay costs of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the applicant within eight weeks,” the order states.
Significantly, it added that the competent authority shall be “at liberty to examine fixation of responsibility and effect recovery from the erring officials, if so advised.” (KDC)
