On a cold December 20 morning in Jammu, the Chief Justice’s court briefly revisited a dispute that has followed a retired employee for more than a decade. By noon, however, the matter was wrapped up. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that nothing substantial remained in a contempt petition filed by Bhushan Lal Koul, bringing the proceedings to an end.
Background
The case stemmed from a 2013 judgment where the writ court had directed government authorities to calculate and pay interest on Koul’s General Provident Fund (GPF) for the period between October 2004 and January 2008, strictly as per GPF rules. Years later, alleging non-compliance, Koul approached the court again, this time seeking contempt action against the officials concerned.
When the matter was called out, the petitioner was unrepresented. The government, through its counsel, placed a detailed statement of facts on record explaining how the GPF claim was processed.
Court’s Observations
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli noted that the petitioner’s GPF case had reached the Funds Organisation only in January 2007. Officials pointed out that several discrepancies had cropped up - missing ledger entries, clarification of earlier debits, and verification from different offices in Jammu, Doda, and Srinagar. These, the government said, took time to resolve.
According to the record, a final payment authority amounting to over ₹5 lakh, including interest up to October 2004, was issued in February 2008 and received by Koul. A smaller residual amount was later released to cover missing credits.
The court also took note of Rule 20 of the GPF Rules. As the bench observed, “interest is permissible only up to six months where a pension case reaches the Funds Office late, and beyond that period no interest accrues.” The delay, officials argued, was not on their part but linked to the petitioner or the concerned departmental office.
Decision
After hearing the explanation and perusing the file, the Chief Justice concluded that the 2013 directions had been complied with in accordance with the applicable rules. With no willful disobedience made out, the court held that “nothing substantive survives” in the contempt petition and disposed of it as infructuous.
Case Title: Bhushan Lal Koul vs Pushpa Devi and Others
Case Number: CPSW No. 220/2014 (arising out of SWP No. 1867/2010)
Date of Decision: 20 December 2025
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General
Counsel for Petitioner: None appeared
