UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (URBAN LOCAL BODIES) MR. ILYAS NAZIR LAWAY vs MIRZADA JAVAID AHMAD — LPA/53/2026
Case under Letters Patent Section 12. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 05th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010013382026
e-Filing Number
01-04-2026
Filing Number
LPA/1039/2026
Filing Date
06-04-2026
Registration No
LPA/53/2026
Registration Date
06-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN PALLI , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL
Coram
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ARUN PALLI , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL
Bench Type
DIVISION BENCH
Category
DB LPA(SW) ( 200 )
Sub-Category
RETIRAL BENEFIT. ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (LPA)
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (URBAN LOCAL BODIES) MR. ILYAS NAZIR LAWAY
DIRECTOR URBAN LOCAL BODIES
Adv. ILYAS LAWAY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ANANTNAG
Adv. ILYAS LAWAY
PAO ACCOUNTS OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Adv. ILYAS LAWAY
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUNDS AUDIT AND PENSIONS FINANCE DEPTT
Adv. ILYAS LAWAY
ACCOUNTS OFFICER URBAN LOCAL BODIES
Adv. ILYAS LAWAY
Respondent(s)
MIRZADA JAVAID AHMAD
Orders
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir modified the Writ Court's judgment directing the Union Territory to release all retiral benefits and arrears to respondent Mirzada Javaid Ahmad within three months. The Court reduced the penalty interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum (calculated from when benefits first became due) for non-compliance, rejecting the UT's objections based on an FIR regarding the respondent's appointment, as similar arguments had been previously discarded in an identical case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir modified the Writ Court's judgment directing the Union Territory to release all retiral benefits and arrears to respondent Mirzada Javaid Ahmad within three months. The Court reduced the penalty interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum (calculated from when benefits first became due) for non-compliance, rejecting the UT's objections based on an FIR regarding the respondent's appointment, as similar arguments had been previously discarded in an identical case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts