1. Introduction

This judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar in WP(C) No. 616/2021 c/w WP(C) No. 391/2021, deals with an important and recurring issue in service jurisprudence: whether employees of a government‑funded autonomous institution are entitled, as a matter of right, to post‑retirement pension on par with Government employees or employees of similar institutions elsewhere in the country.

The petitioners – one set comprising 59 serving and retired employees of the J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, and another comprising an individual retired employee – sought:

• Post‑retirement pension on the same pattern as Government of J&K employees (pre‑2010 pension scheme);
• Arrears of pension for those already superannuated;
• Treatment of their Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) as General Provident Fund (GPF) on the pattern of Government employees; and
• Pensionary benefits on par with employees of other Sainik Schools in India and with certain J&K Government‑funded bodies.

The case lies at the intersection of:

• the nature of pension as a service benefit;
• the legal status of autonomous societies fully funded and controlled by the Government;
• the limits of “parity” and equality arguments under Article 14; and
• the judicial power to compel extension of pension schemes by way of a writ of mandamus.

The judgment is a “speaking” and “reportable” decision, thus intended to have precedential value in the service‑law regime of J&K and Ladakh, especially regarding employees of autonomous and government‑aided institutions.

2. Factual Background

2.1 The Institution: J&K Sainik School, Mansbal

J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, was established in 1980 by the then State Government of Jammu & Kashmir vide Government Order No. 1248‑Edu of 1980 dated 05.08.1980. It is administered by a society registered under the J&K Societies Act. Key features include:

• The Society is to administer the school; the Government provides capital assets (land, buildings) and grant‑in‑aid.
• The Board of Governors is the chief executive body, consisting of:
  • Chief Minister – Chairman;
  • Minister for Education – Vice‑Chairman;
  • Chief Secretary, Planning Commissioner, Financial Secretary, Education Secretary, Education Commissioner;
  • Two eminent educationists nominated by the Chairman; and
  • Project Director/Principal as Member‑Secretary.
• The School is fully or overwhelmingly funded by the Government of J&K/UT of J&K, and also charges regulated fees from students.

Importantly, the service conditions of employees are governed not by the Civil Service Rules applicable to Government employees, but by the School’s own Rules and Regulations framed by the Society.

2.2 Service Conditions and Benefits under Existing Rules

Chapter V of the School’s Rules and Regulations deals with pay, allowances and fringe benefits. It provides, inter alia:

• Pay scales as per an appendix;
• Periodical increments and dearness allowance;
• Facility of meals with students, rent‑free accommodation and furniture, free electricity, servants and conservancy services;
• Entertainment allowance, TA/DA, honorarium, advance leave salary, festival allowance, medical facilities; and
• Contributory Provident Fund (CPF).

Critically, the Rules do not provide any post‑retirement pension.

2.3 Attempts to Introduce a Pension Scheme

The petitioners’ grievance is rooted in a long chronology of deliberations to introduce pension:

• 1988 (Government of India Circular): GOI extended pension benefits to employees of Sainik Schools under the Sainik Schools Society (Ministry of Defence). J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, however, is not part of that national society; it is run by a separate J&K society.
• 1991–2004 (Executive Committee & Board of Governors):
  • 30th Executive Committee meeting (27.12.1991) approved in principle extension of pension on lines of other Sainik Schools.
  • 12th Board of Governors meeting (02.10.2004) directed further processing.
• 18.09.2005 – Chief Minister’s Approval: At the School’s annual day, the then Chief Minister (Chairman, Board of Governors) approved extension of pension scheme to the employees on the pattern applicable to State Government employees. The Education Department subsequently put up a note to confirm this decision and to circulate it among Board members.
• 07.09.2007: Principal/Member‑Secretary prepared a draft pension scheme for implementation.
• 19.12.2007 – Financial Advisor’s Objection: The Financial Advisor/CAO, Education Department, objected to implementation without formal approval of the Administrative Department and concurrence of the Finance Department.
• 2009–2011 – Finance Department’s Conditional No‑Objection:
  • Finance Department communicated that as the School had become entirely dependent on Government funds, a proper scheme was needed.
  • At a later stage, Finance expressed no objection to grant of pension to employees engaged before 01.10.2010, subject to the condition that the additional financial burden would be borne by the Society from its internal resources, routed through the Administrative Department.
• 2011–2016 – Further Board Deliberations:
  • 13th Board of Governors (02.06.2011): a sub‑committee including senior officers of Finance and Education Departments and the Principal was constituted.
  • 14th Board of Governors (10.10.2013): matter to be re‑examined by Finance Department in reference to pension rules of other Sainik Schools.
  • 15th Board of Governors (20.12.2016): Principal directed to submit a concrete proposal with financial implications.

The School pleaded that it did not have sufficient “internal resources” (beyond Government grants) to shoulder the additional liability, so the scheme could never be operationalized.

3. Reliefs Sought and Core Legal Issues

3.1 Reliefs Sought by the Petitioners

The petitioners claimed:

• Direction to grant pensionary benefits “in accordance with the scheme as was in vogue before 2010” (i.e., pre‑New Pension System regime) applicable to J&K Government employees;
• Arrears of pension for already retired petitioners;
• Direction to treat and adjust their CPF as GPF, as applicable to Government employees; and
• Pension on the pattern of:
  • other Sainik Schools in the country; and
  • certain J&K Government‑funded institutions (IMPA, Khadi & Village Industries Board, J&K Sports Council).

3.2 Main Grounds Taken by the Petitioners

• Article 12 / State Control: The Society managing the School is a “State” under Article 12 due to deep and pervasive control, full Government funding, and provision of land/buildings. Hence, the employees should be treated akin to Government employees.
• Parity with other Sainik Schools: Other Sainik Schools under the Ministry of Defence have pension; Mansbal employees perform similar functions and should not be excluded.
• Effect of Chief Minister’s Approval (2005): The Chief Minister, as Chairman of the Board of Governors, approved extension of the pension scheme. The State cannot resile from this decision.
• Parity with pre‑2010 Government employees: State employees appointed prior to 2010 continue to receive pension, whereas the petitioners (many appointed before 2010) are denied similar benefits.
• Parity with other J&K autonomous bodies: Employees of J&K IMPA, J&K Khadi & Village Industries Board, and J&K Sports Council have been granted pension; denying same to petitioners is discriminatory.
• Pension as social security: Pension was characterised as a measure of social security and a right of employees who have rendered long years of service.

3.3 Stand of the Respondents

• The School is run by the J&K Sainik School Society, not by the Sainik Schools Society of India (MoD); the two sets of institutions are distinct. Hence, no parity with other Sainik Schools can be claimed.
• The School’s Rules currently provide only for CPF and other benefits, not pension; thus, there is no legal right to pension.
• Finance Department’s no‑objection is explicitly conditional on the Society meeting extra financial burden from its internal resources, which the School does not possess. Therefore, the scheme cannot be implemented.

3.4 Legal Questions Before the Court

From the judgment, three core issues emerge:

1. Does the Chief Minister/Chairman’s 2005 approval of a pension scheme confer an enforceable right to pension on the School’s employees?
2. In absence of a pension provision in the School’s Rules, do the petitioners have a legally enforceable right to pension that can be upheld through a writ of mandamus?
3. Can the petitioners successfully invoke parity/equality principles under Article 14 to claim pension on par with:
   • employees of other Sainik Schools in India;
   • employees of certain J&K Government‑funded bodies; and/or
   • pre‑2010 Government employees under the old pension scheme?

4. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that:

• The Chief Minister’s 2005 “approval” did not by itself create a vested right to pension, because under the School’s Rules such decisions must be ratified by the Board of Governors; that never occurred.
• No writ of mandamus can issue to enforce a right to pension because:
  • the Rules and Regulations governing School employees provide only for CPF and other benefits, not pension; and
  • the right to pension is not a fundamental or inherent right, but is purely a matter of the governing service rules/contract.
• Parity‑based arguments fail because:
  • The J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, is structurally and administratively distinct from other Sainik Schools in India, which are run by a different society under the Ministry of Defence;
  • Mere similarity of duties or common funding source does not justify importing service conditions from other institutions;
  • Equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to compare employees of different autonomous bodies or authorities, even if all qualify as “State” under Article 12.

However, the Court expressly clarified that its dismissal:

“…would not come in the way of Board of Governors of the J&K Sainik School, Mansbal, to extend the benefit of post‑retirement pension to any set of employees of the school, if they deem it proper.”

Thus, while the Court refused to judicially impose a pension scheme, it left the policy decision squarely to the School’s governing body and the Government.

5. Detailed Analysis

5.1 Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

5.1.1 State of J&K & Ors. v. Khursheed Ahmad Mir & Ors. (DB, J&K High Court, 11.11.2021)

This Division Bench decision is the fulcrum of the Court’s reasoning on the nature of pension. The Bench in Khursheed Ahmad Mir held:

“Right to pension is not a fundamental right… It is a mere condition of service. Whether or not an employee… is entitled to pension, is determined by the terms and conditions of his employment… No employee… can claim retirement pension de hors the rules and regulations governing conditions of his service… It is thus not mandatory for an employer to necessarily make a provision for payment of monthly amount by way of pension… The post‑retirement payments… would be governed by the terms and conditions of his service.”

The Division Bench, after examining Supreme Court decisions including:

• All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 644;
• Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 702; and
• Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees v. ONGC, (1990) 2 SCC 472;

concluded that no employee is entitled, as a matter of right, to claim retirement pension unless the governing service rules expressly provide so. That conclusion is explicitly quoted and adopted in the present judgment.

This precedent is particularly significant because it directly involved employees of an autonomous corporation (SIDCO), whose Articles and Service Regulations, like in the present case, did not provide for pension. The Court here uses that decision to underscore that even Government employees recruited after a particular date (post‑SRO 400 of 2010 in J&K) are not entitled to pension under the old regime; hence, employees of other entities cannot demand a greater right.

5.1.2 All India Sainik Schools Employees Association v. Defence Minister‑cum‑Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik Schools Society, AIR 1989 SC 88

The petitioners had relied on this Supreme Court decision in an attempt to draw parity with other Sainik Schools. Justice Dhar characterises that reliance as “misplaced”.

In All India Sainik Schools Employees Association, the Supreme Court held that employees of Sainik Schools cannot claim parity with employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas merely because their work is similar. The Court emphasised that:

• Kendriya Vidyalayas are ordinary schools in the conventional sense;
• Sainik Schools are specialised institutions primarily designed to feed the National Defence Academy; and
• They are structurally and functionally distinct.

The principle drawn in the present judgment is broader: similarity of duties or institutional label (“Sainik School”) is not, by itself, sufficient basis for claiming equal service conditions.

Justice Dhar extends this logic to distinguish the Mansbal Sainik School from Sainik Schools under the Sainik Schools Society (Ministry of Defence). Though the type of work may be comparable, the employer, governance structure and funding model are different, preventing a direct parity claim.

5.1.3 Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Krishan Bhandari, (1996) 11 SCC 348

This Supreme Court decision is cited to clarify the scope of Article 14:

“…equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated… [It] cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12.”

In other words, employees cannot claim equal treatment based on comparison across different State instrumentalities (distinct employers), each with its own policy space, even if all such entities are “State” under Article 12.

This undermines the petitioners’ attempt to compare their service conditions not only with Government employees but also with employees of other autonomous bodies such as IMPA, Khadi & Village Industries Board, and Sports Council.

5.1.4 Union of India v. Association of Employees of Indian Institute of Mass Communication, (2020) 1 AD (Delhi) 23 (DB)

The Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment in the IIMC case is quoted at length. Key propositions derived are:

• Autonomous Bodies (ABs), even when wholly Government‑funded and performing governmental functions, are distinct legal entities governed by their own Memoranda, Rules and bye‑laws;
• Employees of ABs are not Central Government servants and cannot, as of right, demand application of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972;
• The fact that an AB is fully funded by Government does not, by itself, justify parity with Government employees; and
• Where Government has not consented or issued orders extending CCS (Pension) Rules to a particular AB (despite a general Office Memorandum permitting such extension), the Court cannot compel such extension.

Justice Dhar invokes this reasoning almost directly:

“…this Court cannot force the Petitioner No. 2 to give its concurrence for introduction of the pension scheme under CCS Pension Rules for the employees of Respondent No. 3 organisation.”

Analogously, the J&K High Court holds that it cannot judicially force the UT Government or the Board of Governors to implement a pension scheme for the Mansbal School employees, especially when Finance Department’s concurrence is conditional and the condition (internal resource funding) is admittedly unfulfilled.

5.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

5.2.1 Effect (and Limits) of the Chief Minister’s 2005 Approval

A key plank of the petitioners’ case was that the Chief Minister, as Chairman of the Board of Governors, had approved extension of the pension scheme in 2005, thus binding the School and creating enforceable rights. The Court examines the Society’s Rules and Regulations:

• The Board of Governors is the “Chief Executive Body” empowered to take all decisions regarding the School’s business;
• There are nine members in addition to the Chairman;
• Clause 1.10 (Chapter I) permits the Chairman to transact business or take action between Board meetings, but such action must be placed before the Board at its next meeting for ratification, subject to modifications or exceptions.

On this basis, the Court concludes:

• The Chairman’s approval in 2005 was only an administrative/initial step; it had to be placed before and ratified by the full Board.
• The Board never formally ratified or adopted a pension scheme; rather, it repeatedly referred the matter to the Finance Department and conditioned consideration on financial feasibility.
• Finance Department’s no‑objection was expressly conditional on the Society’s internal resource capacity, which did not exist.

Consequently, the 2005 approval remained inchoate and non‑operative, incapable of creating a justiciable right for employees. No formal policy decision or amended Rule creating pension rights ever came into existence.

From an administrative law perspective, one might see an argument of “legitimate expectation” or “promissory estoppel” in this history. However, the Court does not adopt that route. It focuses strictly on the Society’s decision‑making architecture: without Board ratification and financing, no enforceable scheme exists. This restrained approach underscores the Court’s unwillingness to transform unimplemented political/administrative assurances into binding rights where financial and procedural pre‑conditions remain unsatisfied.

5.2.2 Mandamus and the Need for a Pre‑Existing Legal Right

Justice Dhar restates the classical requirements for a writ of mandamus:

• The petitioner must establish a legal right in his favour; and
• There must be a corresponding public duty cast upon the respondent, which it has failed to perform.

Applying this test, the Court:

1. Examines the School’s Rules and Regulations and finds:
   • Specific provision for CPF and various service benefits; and
   • No provision whatsoever for pension on superannuation.
2. Relies on the Division Bench’s ruling in Khursheed Ahmad Mir to hold that:
   • Right to pension is not a fundamental right;
   • It flows purely from the terms and conditions of service; and
   • Absent any rule granting pension, employees cannot claim it.
3. Notes that an employer is legally permitted to structure post‑retirement benefits in different ways:
   • monthly pension (annuity);
   • lump‑sum provident fund/gratuity; or
   • other forms of ex‑gratia or retirement benefits.

Thus, the existence of CPF and other retirement benefits in the Rules lawfully substitutes for a pension scheme. It may be less generous in the petitioners’ eyes, but legally that does not invalidate the arrangement or create a right to a different regime.

In this framework, the petitions fail at the first threshold: absence of a legal right to pension under the governing Rules means no mandamus can issue.

5.2.3 Rejection of Parity Claims: Other Sainik Schools and J&K Institutions

Petitioners sought parity on three fronts:

• With employees of other Sainik Schools across India (under the Sainik Schools Society, Ministry of Defence);
• With employees of J&K’s own autonomous bodies (IMPA, Khadi & Village Industries Board, Sports Council);
• With Government of J&K employees appointed prior to 2010 (who continue under the old pension regime).

The Court treats these arguments as variants of the broader theme: “We should not be discriminated against since we do similar work and are similarly funded.”

The Court’s response rests on two legal pillars:

1. Distinctness of employers and legal regimes:
   • Other Sainik Schools are run by the Sainik Schools Society of India under the Ministry of Defence, with a different constitution and funding model.
   • Mansbal Sainik School is run by a J&K‑registered Society, controlled and funded by the UT Government.
   • IMPA, Khadi Board and Sports Council are entirely different entities, with distinct statutory frameworks, functions and staff structures.
2. Scope of Article 14 equality:
   • Per Krishan Bhandari, Article 14 applies when a single “State” authority treats similarly situated persons unequally; it does not compel harmonisation of policies between different State instrumentalities.
   • Per All India Sainik Schools Employees Association, similarity of duties does not equate to similarity of institutions for service condition parity.
   • Per the IIMC case, even full Government funding of an autonomous body does not force the Government to align its service rules with Central Government rules.

The Court also points to an internal inconsistency in the petitioners’ argument: while they emphasise similarity of duties and Government funding to justify parity, they overlook the vital distinction that the legal source of their service conditions is their own Society’s Rules, not the Civil Service Regulations applicable to Government servants.

In essence, the Court holds:

“…merely because the duties performed by two sets of employees may be similar or the two sets of employees pertaining to two different institutions are being funded from a single source would not be in itself a ground to claim parity in service conditions…”

5.3 Impact and Significance

5.3.1 For Employees of Autonomous and Government‑Funded Bodies

This judgment reinforces and extends a clear doctrinal position in Indian service law:

• Autonomous institutions, even if registered as societies and fully funded and controlled by Government, remain distinct employers with their own service law regimes.
• Employees cannot, by invoking Article 14 or Article 12, automatically import the service conditions (including pension rules) of Government servants or of other autonomous bodies.
• Even explicit Government “no‑objection” letters or political announcements are not self‑executing: unless translated into formal rules, regulations or Board‑approved schemes, they do not create enforceable rights.

In practice, this restricts the ability of employees of government‑aided schools, universities, boards, councils and societies to claim Government pension schemes merely on the basis of:

• full/majority Government funding;
• functional similarity of duties with Government staff; or
• political declarations of intent.

5.3.2 Relationship with the Old vs. New Pension Regime (Pre‑ and Post‑2010 in J&K)

The petitioners sought to ride on the distinction between:

• pre‑2010 Government employees (covered by the old, defined‑benefit pension); and
• post‑2010 recruits (under NPS, via SRO 400 of 2010).

However, the Court, following Khursheed Ahmad Mir, uses this history to emphasise the opposite:

• Even Government employees recruited after 2010 do not receive traditional pension; the Government is free to change its pension policy prospectively.
• If the Government itself can deny traditional pension to its own fresh recruits by altering service rules, a fortiori there is no inherent right to pension that autonomous‑body employees can claim.

Thus, the 2010 cut‑off strengthens the Court’s conclusion that pension is a matter of policy and service rules, not a constitutional guarantee.

5.3.3 Institutional Autonomy and Financial Constraints

The Court’s deference to the Finance Department’s conditional concurrence and to the Society’s financial incapacity underscores a key theme:

• Pension schemes involve substantial long‑term financial liabilities; courts are wary of compelling such commitments absent clear legal rules and financial sanction.
• Autonomous bodies cannot be judicially pushed into unsustainable liabilities on the strength of incomplete or conditional Government approvals.
• Policy choices on social security benefits, especially where they intersect with budgetary constraints, are primarily the domain of the executive and governing boards.

The judgment therefore adds to a line of authority that respects the delineation between:

• What is fair or desirable policy (e.g., that long‑serving staff should receive pension); and
• What is legally enforceable through writ jurisdiction.

6. Simplifying the Key Legal Concepts

6.1 “State” under Article 12 vs. Parity under Article 14

The petitioners argued that the Society is a “State” under Article 12 because the Government controls and funds it. While such a finding may make writ petitions maintainable (the Court proceeds on that assumption), it does not mean:

• that employees automatically become Government servants; or
• that the Society must mimic Government service rules, including pension schemes.

Article 14 (equality) ensures non‑discrimination by a given State authority amongst persons it deals with. It does not compel different State instrumentalities (e.g., different societies, boards, corporations) to adopt identical policies.

6.2 Writ of Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is a high‑level judicial order requiring a public authority to perform a duty. Two pre‑conditions:

• The petitioner has a clearly established legal right; and
• The respondent has a corresponding public duty under law to act in a particular way.

In this case, because the School’s Rules provided no right to pension, the employees had no legal right and the School had no corresponding legal duty to pay pension. Therefore, no mandamus could be issued to “create” such a right.

6.3 Pension vs. Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)

• Pension (traditional/defined‑benefit):
  • Regular monthly payment after retirement, usually funded out of the employer’s budget;
  • Generally depends on last‑drawn salary and length of service;
  • Creates long‑term financial obligations for the employer.
• Contributory Provident Fund (CPF):
  • Periodical contributions by employee (and often employer) accumulated in an individual account;
  • Payable as a lump sum (with interest) on retirement;
  • The employer’s liability is largely limited to its contributions, not to an open‑ended post‑retirement payment promise.

Legally, an employer is free to choose CPF (with or without additional benefits) instead of a pension scheme. The Court recognises this as a valid alternative form of post‑retirement benefit.

6.4 Old Pension Scheme vs. New Pension System (NPS)

In J&K, like in many other jurisdictions, a shift occurred around 2010:

• Old Scheme: Government guaranteed defined pension payments for life after retirement.
• Post‑2010 (NPS): Government contribution to an individual retirement account; pension depends on accumulation; no guaranteed defined benefit.

The Court notes that:

• Even Government employees recruited after the cut‑off date are not entitled to the old pension scheme; thus, there is no immutable right to pension at large.
• The petitioners cannot claim a superior right than those enjoyed by new Government recruits.

7. Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The High Court’s decision in Abdul Majeed Parray v. UT of J&K & Ors. can be distilled into the following core propositions:

1. Pension is a matter of service rules, not a constitutional entitlement.
   Employees acquire a right to pension only if their governing Rules, Regulations or contractual terms so provide. Without such a provision, no inherent or fundamental right to pension exists.
2. Autonomous, Government‑funded bodies are distinct employers.
   Even when they qualify as “State” under Article 12 and are fully funded and controlled by Government, their employees are bound by their own service rules, not those of Government servants or employees of other institutions.
3. Parity and equality arguments have limits.
   Similarity of work, common funding source, or even shared policy objectives do not suffice to claim identical service conditions. Article 14 cannot be invoked to compel uniform pension policies across different boards, societies and corporations.
4. Executive approvals and political assurances do not automatically crystallise into enforceable rights.
   A Chairman’s (even Chief Minister’s) in‑principle approval must be formally ratified by the competent governing body and supported by financial sanction. Conditional “no‑objection” from Finance, unfulfilled by the institution’s resources, does not create a legally binding pension scheme.
5. Courts will not impose unfunded pension liabilities on autonomous bodies.
   Judicial review cannot be used to mandate policy choices involving serious fiscal implications where legal rules do not already create those rights.
6. Policy door remains open.
   Though the writ petitions were dismissed, the Court explicitly left the Board of Governors free to introduce a pension scheme in future, should they “deem it proper”. The judgment thus separates the question of desirability of pension from that of its legal enforceability.

In the broader legal context, this judgment strengthens a clear line of precedent: employees of Government‑funded societies and autonomous bodies, even where such bodies fall within “State” under Article 12, cannot expand their service rights by judicial fiat beyond what their own Rules and Regulations provide. Any extension of pension benefits to such employees remains, fundamentally, a matter of legislative or executive policy rather than judicial compulsion.