Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Pension Is a Property under Article 31(1), Any Interference with It Violative of the Constitution

Jammu & Kashmir High Court ordered on pension is a property under Article 31(1), any interference with it violative of the constitution. Also ruled that retiral benefits cannot be denied to a retired employee simply because crime branch clearance is pending—particularly when the related FIR has already been closed. Justice Rajesh Sekhri, who delivered the judgement, emphasized that an ongoing investigation does not amount to a judicial proceeding and cannot justify the delay in disbursing retirement dues.

The case concerned Prem Kumar, who previously served as a storekeeper with the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (JAKFED), who retired in 2011. He was named in a 1995 FIR concerning alleged misappropriation of food grains. However, the investigation concluded with the FIR being declared “not proved” and closed, a decision later accepted by the Anti-Corruption Court.

Following the 2019 winding-up of Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, a liquidator was appointed. Instead of clearing Kumar’s pending dues, a public notice stated that he owed Rs- 4 lakhs. In response, Kumar submitted a 'no dues' certificate and filed a claim for Rs- 8.4 lakhs. With no progress made, he approached the High Court for relief.

Kumar argued that he had cooperated fully and met all requirements, yet his dues remained unpaid. He cited previous court rulings affirming that pending investigations alone are insufficient grounds to withhold retirement benefits. The respondents defended their action by invoking SRO 233 of 1988, which requires crime branch clearance for employees of cooperative institutions, and claimed that Kumar had ignored a 2023 public notice.

The court found these arguments legally unsound, pointing out that Kumar’s dues were sanctioned in 2014 and the FIR closure nullified any justification for delay. It held that requiring crime branch clearance in such cases lacks statutory backing and breaches constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Relying on precedents such as Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Lone v. State of J&K, the court reaffirmed that FIR investigations are not judicial proceedings. The judge directed immediate release of all pending benefits along with interest, asserting that employers cannot impose unsupported conditions to withhold lawful entitlements.