Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J&K And Ors vs Mohammad Maqbool And Ors on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
S. No. 21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.625/2024 CM No.1709/2024
UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mohd Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Ab. Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG for R 1 to 3.
Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with
Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate for R 4 to 9.
Vs.
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. A. Tabasum, Advocate with
Mr. Mohd Idrees and Mr. Abid Bashir, Advocates.
Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate for R 3 and 32.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
28.07.2025
(ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, directed against the judgment and order dated
03.10.2023 (for short ‘the impugned judgment’) passed in T.A.
No.1350/2021 titled “Mohd Maqbool Dar and Ors. Vs. State of J&K and
Ors.,” by the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench (for short
‘the Tribunal’). The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioners
primarily, on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the
petitioners cannot pay the salary to the respondents (Draftsmen) in the
pay scale of Rs.5150-8300 for the reason that the Pay Revision Rules of
1992 prescribe the pay scale of Draftsman as Rs.4000-6000. He
submitted that the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300 would be applicable to the
Draftsmen after completing eight years of service.
1
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we
are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the petitioners in
this petition before us is no longer res-integra.
3. The issue cropped up for consideration before this Court for the first time
in SWP No.2047/2003 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court vide order dated 21.11.2008 and a direction in the said petition
was issued to the petitioners to release the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300 in
favour of the respondents on the analogy of similarly situated Draftsmen
who had already been released the aforesaid pay scale by the petitioners
herein on their own.
4. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was assailed before the
Division Bench and, thereafter, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by
way of a Special Leave Petition. The judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge remained undisturbed and was finally implemented by the
petitioners. In this way, almost all the Draftsmen similarly situated with
the respondents who were entitled to initial pay scale of Rs.4000-6000, as
per the Pay Revision Rules 1992, came to be placed in the pay scale of
Rs.5150-8300.
5. Indisputably, the respondents who were similarly placed with petitioners
in the writ petition titled “Sham Paul Randhawa Vs. State & Ors” (in
SWP No.2047/2003) also came to this Court in the year 2008. The
direction was issued to the petitioners herein to consider the case of the
petitioners therein on the analogy of the similarly situated persons who
were writ petitioners in the writ petition titled Sham Paul Randhawa
(supra). The judgment was not accepted by the petitioners herein and an
appeal was filed under clause 12 of the Letters Patent before the Division
2
Bench of this Court. After dismissal of the appeal of the petitioners, a
contempt petition was filed by the respondents seeking implementation of
the judgment.
6. During the course of contempt proceedings, a consideration order
rejecting the claim of the respondents was placed on record which was
made subject matter of challenge by the respondents before this Court in
a writ petition which on transfer to the Tribunal registered was as T.A
No.1350/2021. It is the said T.A which has now been allowed by the
Tribunal.
7. We have gone through the entire judgment passed by the Tribunal and we
are of the view that the Tribunal has only followed the judgment passed
by this Court in favour of similarly situated Draftsmen and has rightly
concluded that the respondents cannot be discriminated in the matter of
giving the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300, for the reasons that they are
similarly situated with hundreds of other Draftsmen who are already
enjoying the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300. The judgment passed by the
Tribunal is, thus, in tune with the Division Bench Judgment passed by
this Court in case titled “State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Rashid
Ahmad and Ors.,” in LPASW No. 84/2016 decided on 14.02.2019 and,
therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we found no merit in this petition. Same is
accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
28.07.2025
Ishaq
Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable ? Yes/No
Isaq Hameed Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document 3
30.07.2025 15:41