Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 6: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Chairman, J&K Board of School Education, holding that an officer who was made to discharge duties of a higher office carrying greater responsibility was entitled to be compensated, and the allowance paid to him could not be recovered.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the judgment in LPA No. 36/2025, filed by the JKBOSE against Syed Abdul Rouf and another. The judgment was reserved on April 21, 2026 and pronounced on May 6, 2026.
The Board was represented by Mr. M.I. Dar, Advocate with Ms. Laila Khan, Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Arshad Andrabi, Advocate.
The case arose from a recovery order issued by JKBOSE on February 7, 2017, whereby the Board had directed recovery of the entire charge allowance paid to the respondent for the period from March 19, 2015 to January 31, 2017.
The respondent, who was serving in the School Education Department, had been deputed to JKBOSE to work as In-charge Joint Secretary. During his posting, he was paid charge allowance by the Board. However, the Board later took the stand that the payment had been made erroneously, as the respondent was deputed in his own pay and grade under standard terms of deputation and was not entitled to any charge allowance.
Aggrieved by the recovery order, the respondent approached the Writ Court, which allowed his petition, quashed the recovery order and restrained the Board from effecting any recovery. The Board then challenged the Writ Court judgment through the present intra-court appeal.
Before the Division Bench, JKBOSE argued that the respondent's posting was governed by the standard terms and conditions of deputation and that the allowance had been wrongly released. It submitted that the recovery order was issued to correct the error and to make good the alleged loss caused to the public exchequer.
After examining the record and relevant provisions of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, including Regulation 87, Article 22-D and Regulation 52-C, the Court observed that the case was not strictly covered either under charge allowance or deputation allowance. However, the Bench noted that the respondent had actually performed the duties of a higher office carrying higher responsibilities.
The Court held that whether the payment was termed as charge allowance or deputation allowance, it was in essence compensation for working outside the parent cadre and performing duties of a higher office with greater responsibility.
The Division Bench further observed that the Government and the Board had not properly understood the import of the service regulations while posting the respondent and granting the allowance. However, since the respondent had discharged higher responsibilities, the Court found no reason to interfere with the relief granted by the Writ Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by JKBOSE and upheld the Writ Court's decision quashing the recovery order. Interim directions, if any, were also vacated.
(JNF) |
