Ex-Cop Wins JKCA Pension Recovery Battle In High Court

Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has set aside a judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein recovery of remuneration received by former police officer Sudershan Mehta from Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) from his pension was upheld.

Mehta, as noted by the court, retired as Incharge Deputy Superintendent of Police. In 2015, the police headquarters J&K received information that Mehta had been working as Joint Secretary in the JKCA simultaneously while working in the police department, without obtaining prior permission of the Government as mandated under Rule 21(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971. It also came to notice of police headquarters that Mehta was receiving an amount of Rs.12,000 per month as honorarium for performing his duties as Joint Secretary in JKCA.

On 28 June last year Tribunal upheld the action of the authorities in recovering remuneration received by Mehta from JKCA from his pension. However, the Tribunal allowed Mehta's prayer for his regularization as Dy.S.P. and issued necessary directions for considering his case for regularization with effect from the date he was entitled to be promoted as Dy.S.P along with his other counterparts, including grant of selection grade of Dy.S.P. with all consequential benefits.

The Government has not chosen to assail the directions, which are passed against it and, therefore, has accepted the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said that a retired person like Mehta cannot be subjected to departmental proceedings for the misconduct which such employee has committed during the period he was in service.

“It is beyond pale of any discussion that Rules 30 and 33 to 35 of the Rules of 1956, which deal with disciplinary proceedings and the punishments that can be imposed on conclusion thereof, do not envisage the conduct of disciplinary inquiry into the misconduct of a delinquent employee after his superannuation,” the bench said, adding,“This is so because the competent authority is not empowered to inflict any of the penalties envisaged under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1956 upon a person, who has ceased to be a member of service.”

MENAFN15092025000215011059ID1110065694