The High Court affirms that non-performance of procedural formalities, such as submission of a medical certificate for commutation of pension, cannot be grounds for denial when impossibility is caused by unprecedented events like a nationwide Covid-19 lockdown. This judgment clarifies the application of the Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960 in the context of force majeure, reinforces existing legal principles, and serves as binding precedent for subordinate judiciary in Jammu & Kashmir.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/23/2025 of SHER E KASHMIR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY OF JAMMU AND OTHERS Vs PROMILA KACHROO |
| CNR | JKHC020000662025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu |
| Bench | Division Bench (HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Writ Court’s reasoning |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Pensionary Benefits under Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the failure to complete procedural formalities due to Covid-19 lockdown can defeat an otherwise valid claim to commuted pension. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when a government servant applies for commutation of pension but is unable to complete codal formalities such as submission of a medical certificate due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., pandemic-induced lockdown), technical requirements must not be used to defeat substantive entitlement. The Church examined the requirement of rules in light of extraordinary circumstances and accepted that administrative impossibility during lockdown constituted valid reason for non-compliance. The existence of post-facto superannuation order and absence of proven misconduct also supported entitlement. The right to pensionary benefits cannot be denied on purely technical grounds when the applicant’s intent and efforts are undisputed and impossibility is admitted by the administration. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The impugned Writ Court judgment; no specific precedent cited. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Article 168-D of J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (Govt. Instruction No.2); Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960; admitted factual impossibility due to lockdown. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased government servant applied for commuted value of pension on 10.03.2020 before retirement on 31.03.2020. Before pension sanction, he died due to Covid-19 on 11.05.2020. Nationwide lockdown beginning 24.03.2020 prevented completion of medical/formal procedures. After his death, the university refused commuted pension to his widow citing incomplete formalities and pending complaints. No criminal/disciplinary action had resulted from complaints. The writ court allowed the widow’s petition, ordering release per rules. The university appealed, arguing rules and formalities were not met. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts faced with similar force majeure circumstances |
| Follows | The impugned Writ Court judgment in WP(C) No.855/2022 (reasoning affirmed) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that procedural failures in pension commutation, if caused by events like nationwide pandemic lockdowns, cannot alone justify denial of pensionary claims.
- Government authorities cannot rely on technicalities to defeat substantive rights where impossibility is established.
- Holds that intent shown and steps actually taken by the applicant are material, especially if administrative impossibility is acknowledged by the employer.
- Confirms that pending, unproven complaints (not resulting in proceedings) do not bar pension rights posthumously, in line with existing government instructions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the requirement for fulfillment of procedural formalities under the Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960 and specifically addressed the appellants’ argument regarding non-submission of a medical certificate.
- It was acknowledged that the deceased government servant submitted his application for commutation before retiring, but the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020 rendered completion of remaining formalities impossible.
- The bench found the refusal to sanction commutation on purely technical grounds unjustified, emphasizing that the respondent’s right was not defeated merely due to non-performance of formalities arising from a force majeure situation.
- Government Instruction No.2 to Article 168-D of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 was invoked, confirming that a deceased employee against whom no proceedings were concluded must be treated as exonerated for pensionary purposes.
- The impugned writ court’s findings were found logical and legally sustainable, leading to outright affirmation and dismissal of the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (University/Appellant)
- The Writ Court did not refer to the Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960.
- Rule 12 requires submission of a medical certificate; this was not done by the respondent’s late husband.
- Application alone does not suffice; formalities were not completed due to respondent’s own inaction, not just the lockdown.
- Pending complaints against the deceased justified withholding commuted pension.
- Purpose/object of commutation should have been specified as per norms.
Respondent (Widow)
- The deceased applied for pension commutation on 10.03.2020 before superannuation.
- Nationwide lockdown from 24.03.2020 made completion of formalities impossible; delay or failure cannot be attributed to applicant or his family.
- Death from Covid-19 occurred before pension was sanctioned; refusal on technicalities is unjust.
- No actionable criminal or departmental proceedings were ever initiated or pursued posthumously.
- Sought application of relevant rules and release of all lawful pensionary benefits.
Factual Background
The respondent’s husband, a university professor, was set to retire on 31.03.2020. On 10.03.2020, he submitted an application for commutation of pension. The national Covid-19 lockdown from 24.03.2020 prevented him from submitting the medical certificate or completing other formalities. He died from Covid-19 on 11.05.2020, before commutation could be processed. Posthumously, the university denied commutation citing incomplete formalities and unsubstantiated complaints. The writ court directed release of commuted pension, which was appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- Civil Pension (Commutation) Rules, 1960: Rule 12 and related provisions require application and submission of a medical certificate as procedural prerequisites for commutation.
- Article 168-D, J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (Government Instruction No.2): Where a retired employee dies during pendency of proceedings, he is deemed exonerated for pension purposes.
- No “reading down” of statutory language, but strict compliance with technical requirements is flexible in cases of impossibility due to force majeure (e.g., lockdown).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- The judgment is unanimous; both judges concurred.
- No dissenting or alternative opinion expressed.
Procedural Innovations
- The court accepts administrative impossibility (pandemic lockdown) as sufficient justification for waiver of procedural requirements in pension commutation.
- Endorses post-facto regularisation orders for cases where procedures could not be complied with due to force majeure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reinforces existing rules and government instructions, adapting them to extraordinary circumstances (pandemic lockdown).