Employer Can't Revise Service Book Post-Retirement To Cover Up Own Lapses: J&K&L High Court Quashes Recovery From Retiree

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that an employer cannot revise service records post-retirement to the prejudice of an employee in order to cover up its own lapses, especially when the employee was not responsible for maintaining the service book and the issue stood settled by an earlier judgment of the Court.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the revision of service book entries and consequential recovery from post-retirement benefits of a former employee of the Jammu Development Authority, following communications issued by the Local Fund Audit and Pensions Department.

A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, while setting aside the impugned orders, observed that “A bare perusal of the impugned order …issued by Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit and Pensions, Jammu would show that it is nothing but a cover up by the JDA on its own act of omission and commission to the prejudice of the petitioner.”

While stating that the petitioner was not the author of his own service record book, the Bench further held that “It is the concerned establishment of the JDA which was supposed to remain alert and alive to the corresponding developments related to the service career of the petitioner in the context of his original engagement followed by subsequent postings”.

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Chowkidar on a daily wage basis with the Jammu Development Authority in 1978 and was subsequently assigned duties as a Junior Assistant on consolidated pay.

After serving for several years in that capacity, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of filing a writ petition seeking parity in pay scale with similarly placed employees.

The writ petition was allowed in 1988, directing the JDA to grant the petitioner the same grade as other Junior Assistants from the date of institution of the writ petition, along with all consequential benefits. This judgment attained finality and was implemented by the Authority through a regularisation order in 1989.

During the course of service, the petitioner earned 1st and 2nd in situ promotions under the J&K Civil Service (Higher Standard Pay Scale) Rules, 1996, and was eventually promoted to the post of Head Assistant (Level-6). He superannuated on 30.04.2019, and his last pay certificate was issued accordingly with a gross salary of ₹71,076.

While processing the petitioner's pensionary benefits, the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit and Pensions, issued a communication in September 2019, pointing out alleged discrepancies in the service book regarding the date of regularisation and the grant of in situ promotion.

Acting on this communication, the Jammu Development Authority revised the service book entries post-retirement. It altered the date of the 2nd in situ promotion from 01.12.1999 to 01.09.2003, resulting in the initiation of a recovery of ₹1,40,194/- from the petitioner's pensionary benefits.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the audit communication, the consequential revision order, and the pension fixation order.

The High Court examined the impugned communication issued by the Local Fund Audit and Pensions Department and observed that it reflected an attempt by the JDA to shield itself from its own acts of omission and commission.

The Court held that an employer maintains an employee's service record and that an employee cannot be faulted for any inconsistencies or errors contained therein. It was observed that the petitioner had no role in maintaining or updating the service book and could not be made to suffer on account of administrative lapses.

The Court noted that the judgment passed in the earlier writ petition conclusively determined the petitioner's entitlement to regularisation and pay scale and that the said judgment had attained finality. The employer was bound to implement the judgment “without any dilution”.

The Court further found that the impugned order had been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, rendering it vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), the Court reiterated that “no recovery to be effected by an employer if excess payment has been made to an employee without any act of omission or commission having taken place at the end of an employee”.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order revising the petitioner's service book entries to his prejudice.

The Court directed that there shall be no change in the date of grant of in situ promotion and that the petitioner's pensionary benefits be processed in accordance with the last pay drawn and the recovery amount be refunded. 

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Shrisht Pal Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment