High Court Condemns JDA's Post-Retirement Service Record Changes
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Jammu Development Authority. The court found the JDA guilty of improperly altering a retired employee's service records. Justice Rahul Bharti presided over this significant case.
Court Calls JDA Actions a "Cover-Up"
Justice Bharti described the JDA's 2020 order as nothing but a cover-up. He stated the authority attempted to conceal its own omissions and commissions. These actions directly prejudiced the retired employee involved in the case.
The court heard the plea on January 15, 2026. The retired JDA employee challenged an order from the vice chairperson. This order revised entries in his service book after his retirement.
Employee Denied Basic Hearing Rights
Justice Bharti highlighted a critical procedural failure. The JDA vice chairperson did not extend the basic courtesy of hearing the employee. This serious omission rendered the employer's order legally invalid.
The court emphasized that employees do not author their own service records. The concerned establishment must remain vigilant about service career developments. The JDA failed in this fundamental duty.
Background of the Service Dispute
The conflict began during pension proceedings. The deputy director of local fund audit and pension raised objections. The petitioner joined the JDA as a daily-wage chowkidar in 1978.
Based on his matriculation qualifications, authorities soon assigned him junior assistant duties. The audit office later claimed his regularisation and promotion dates showed contradictions.
Financial Implications for Retiree
The JDA's 2020 order created serious financial consequences. It revised the petitioner's second in situ promotion from 1999 to 2013. This change generated an alleged excess payment of over Rs 1.40 lakh.
The JDA then sought to recover this amount from his retiral benefits. The order also recorded his regularisation from August 1985 under high court directions.
Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent
Justice Bharti referenced the Supreme Court verdict in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih. This precedent fully secures the petitioner's grievance. The court's decision protects retiree rights against arbitrary administrative actions.
The High Court ultimately set aside the JDA's revision order. This ruling reinforces procedural fairness in employment matters. It underscores the importance of hearing employees before making adverse decisions.
