Service, Financial Records Must Establish Claim for Specific Monetary Benefits: Justice M. A. Chowdhary
Srinagar, Oct 7 : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a writ court cannot direct payment of a specific amount merely on the basis of an employee’s assertion unless the entitlement to the claimed amount is established through relevant service and financial records.
The observation was made by Justice M. A. Chowdhary while dealing with a petition concerning a retired employee’s claim regarding alleged unpaid Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and other retiral benefits.
The case arose from a dispute in which the petitioner alleged that part of his retiral benefits had been wrongly withheld and that a specific amount remained payable to him. The respondents, however, maintained that all benefits legally due to the petitioner had already been released.
The High Court emphasized that where an employee seeks payment of a particular monetary amount, the claim must be substantiated by official records. Merely making an assertion regarding the amount allegedly due would not be sufficient for a writ court to issue a direction for payment.
Court Stresses Importance of Official Records
The Court observed that the employee’s entitlement has to be demonstrated through the relevant service records, financial records and other material documents, particularly when the employer disputes the computation or liability.
The Court categorically observed:
“A writ Court cannot direct payment of a particular amount merely on the basis of an assertion of the employee unless the entitlement to such amount is established from the relevant service and financial record.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that the presence of a disputed question of fact does not automatically prevent a writ court from exercising its jurisdiction.
The Court noted that whether such a dispute should be examined in writ jurisdiction would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case and remains a matter of judicial discretion.
The ruling underscores that claims involving specific financial or retiral dues must be supported by documentary evidence establishing the employee’s actual entitlement, especially where the concerned department contests the claim.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate N. A. Beigh, assisted by Advocate Sofi Manzoor, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Omais Kawoos.(KNC)
