Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has issued warrants of arrest against Raja Yaqoob Farooq, Secretary Nigeen Club Srinagar for withholding arrears of an employee suffering from the deadly disease of cancer.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while perusing the personal affidavits of the Secretary Farooq about the case of the petitioner ailing employee observed that there is apparent contradiction between stands taken by the officer in his two affidavits and sought his personal appearance before the court to clear the confusion.
There is already a direction in place for the officer’s personal appearance in terms of order dated 19.11.2024 which remains to be complied with as yet.
Justice Dhar accordingly ordered “bailable warrants of arrest in the amount of Rs 10,000 to be issued for securing presence of Farooq, Secretary of the Club, (a state owned event management venue), before the court on March 3, 2025.”
The warrants have been directed to be sent to Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station.
In the affidavit filed by the officer in compliance to the previous court orders, he admitted that the petitioner employee, Mir Aftab Yaseen, has been paid four installments as arrears of 7th Pay Commission after approval of the release of arrears of 7th Pay Commission in six monthly installments subject to availability of funds.
The same officer in his affidavit further submitted that the Nigeen Club has not taken any decision with respect to payment of arrears of 7th Pay Commission and as such, in absence of any order to that effect, no employee of the society including the petitioner is entitled to 7th Pay Commission.
The petitioner was appointed as a receptionist in Nigeen Club in 1989. From time to time when the pay of the government employees was revised, its benefit was extended to him as well.
According to the petitioner, he received an installment of Rs 40,750 on account of arrears of 7th Pay Commission. On December 12, 2022 he made a representation to the Director Tourism seeking release of outstanding 7th Pay Commission arrears, which were to be disbursed to him in six equal installments, out of which he has received only two installments.
“The petitioner is a cancer patient, and as such, is in need of money. It has been further submitted that besides the arrears of 7th Pay Commission, the respondents have also withheld arrears of enhanced DA and even the Transport Allowance is not being paid to the petitioner,” read his petition.
In August 2024, he filed a petitioner seeking release of salary in his favour — withheld by the respondents since November, 2023.
A direction was issued by the court upon the authorities to release the withheld salary of the petitioner as admissible under rules.
The respondents citing a 2022 circular claimed that they had to ensure that the information of all the employees under their control is updated and verified as per service record of the employees and that the petitioner, instead of furnishing matriculation certificate submitted his school leaving certificate.
According to the respondent authorities, they have sent the said certificate to the Chief Education Officer, Srinagar for verification, which is yet to be received. “Hence the salary as directed by this Court on 08.07.2024 has not been released in favour of the petitioner.”
Justice Dhar in his order recorded “the conduct of the respondents prima facie shows their disdain for the court orders. Once there is an order passed by this court directing the respondents to release withheld salary of the petitioner at admissible rates, the respondents had no option but to comply with the same, notwithstanding any government instruction or circular to the contrary. If the respondents had any grievance against the orders passed by this court, the only option available with them was to seek legal recourse against the said order.”
The judge said “the circular dated 12.10.2022 (supra), it only enjoins upon the DDOs to update information of all employees under their control after verification of the same from the service record of the employee. It nowhere enjoins upon the DDOs to seek certificates relating to age/qualification, etc., from the employees and get those certificates verified.”
He further said “even if the respondents had to seek any information from the petitioner regarding age/qualification, once he had submitted his School Leaving Certificate his salary could not have been withheld. The respondents could have very well updated the information relating to the petitioner on the basis of the certificate furnished by him. They cannot withhold the salary of the petitioner till such time they get the verification of the said certificate from the relevant authority”.
The court noted “the petitioner has been in employment of the respondents since the year 1989. At this stage when he is suffering from a deadly ailment, he cannot be starved by the respondents by withholding his salary. If at all the certificate submitted by the petitioner is found to be fake the respondents would be well within their rights to take action against him in accordance with law. But, until and unless it is established that the certificate produced by the petitioner is fake, they cannot assume the same to be so and withhold his salary”.
It pointed out “facts which have emanated from the case show that the respondents have deep rooted bias against the petitioner”.
