AZAD GOVERNMENT vs Kh — 2025 PLC(CS) 886 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AZAD GOVERNMENT VS Kh. SHOUKAT ABDULLLAH Ss. 16, proviso & 21---azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985---Pensionary benefits of retired employees of Development authority Muzaffarabad (DaM), payment of---Whether responsibility of DaM itself or Government Departments?---Petitioners (Physical Planning and Housing /PPH and the Finance Department) assailed acceptance of writ petitions, filed by retired employees of DaM directing the petitioners to manage the funds for the pension payments forthwith---Ground taken by the petitioners was that under S. 12 of the Development authority Muzaffarabad act, 1989 ('the act, 1989'), the responsibility for paying pensions laid with the Development authority itself, which must bear the costs from its own budget---Validity---DaM, which was the creation of the act, 1989, was an autonomous body/special institution of PPH under the azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985---Section 16 of the act, 1989 empowers the DaM to employ such officers, servants, experts or consultants as it may consider necessary; a proviso to this section provides that salaried officers and servants of BPS-16 and above shall not be appointed except with the previous sanction of the Government---as per S. 21 of act, 1989 there shall be a fund known as the DaM Fund---Said Fund is to be utilized for the payment of salaries and other remunerations to the employees, which (fund) consists of development grants and other grants made by the Government from time to time for execution of its schemes and conduct of its business---Section 12 of the act, 1989, relied upon by the petitioners, did not deal with payment of pension rather it dealt with the powers of the DaM and bore no relevance with the matter-in-hand---although DaM was an autonomous body, its autonomy was not absolute, and it operated under the administrative control and supervision of the Physical Planning and Housing Department---Therefore, the decision of the High Court to direct for the payment of pensionary benefits was just and appropriate and its directions to the relevant authorities to arrange for the release of funds was both fair and in accordance with law---as no legal question of public importance was involved, hence, leave was refused---Petition for Leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

AZAD GOVERNMENT vs Kh — 2025 PLC(CS) 886 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC