Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ut Of J&K And Others vs Latief Karim & Others on 15 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 02.04.2025
Pronounced on: 15.05.2025
WP(C) No.2828/2023
CM no. 6749/2023
UT OF J&K AND OTHERS
...PETITIONER(S)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
Vs.
LATIEF KARIM & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: Mr. N. A. Tabassum, Advocate.
Mr. Mohammad Idrees, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Per OSWAL ‘J’
1. The respondents pursuant to their selection as “Draftsman” were
appointed as such, in the year 2007-08 in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000
(pre-revised). After completion of eight years of service, the respondents
were granted higher pay scale of Rs.5,150-8,300 (pre-revised). The
respondents filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1276/2008 pleading
therein that they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.5,150-8,300
retrospectively i.e. with effect from the respective dates of their
appointment. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
21.02.2014 and the appellants were directed to consider the claim of the
WP(C) No.2828/2023 Page 1 of 5
respondents in light of the judgment passed in case titled “Sham Paul
Randhawa vs. State & Ors” reported in 2009 SLJ (II) 490. The case of
the respondents was considered by the petitioners, but was rejected vide
Government Order No.185-PW(R&B) of 2018 dated 22.03.2018.
2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid consideration order, the respondents
challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for
short “Tribunal”) and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 26th May,
2023 allowed the claim of the respondents.
3. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 26th May, 2023
passed by the learned Tribunal, inter alia, on the following grounds:
(I) That the petitioners have passed a speaking order after
examining the case of the respondents in its entirety and the
rule position. The respondents were appointed pursuant to the
advertisement notification wherein a defined pay scale of
Rs.4,000-6,000 was attached to the post.
(II) That the case of the respondents is completely distinct and
different from that of the petitioners in Sham Paul
Randhawa‘s case, as such, no relief could have been granted
to them.
(III) That the respondents were appointed in the pay scale of
Rs.4,000-6,000 (pre-revised) and they accepted their
appointment knowing fully the terms and conditions of service
and Recruitment Rules governing the appointment of
WP(C) No.2828/2023 Page 2 of 5
Draftsman, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable inthe eyes of law.
4. The respondents have objected to the petition by submitting that
they were appointed as “Draftsman” in the lower pay scale of Rs.4,000-
6,000/ instead of Rs.5,150-8,300/, the pay scale attached to the post of
“Draftsman” in the petitioner-department and in all other departments of
the erstwhile State of J&K and, as such, they were entitled to pay scale
of Rs.5,150-8,300/ retrospectively with effect from their respective dates
of appointments and not to pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000. It is further
stated that the order dated 21.02.2014, by virtue of which the writ
petition preferred by the respondents earlier was disposed of, was
assailed by the petitioners in LPASW No.85/2016 but the same was
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
20.09.2016. Despite dismissal, the petitioners did not implement the
order passed by the learned Writ Court and after four years, rejected
claim of the petitioners vide Government Order No.185-PW(R&B) of
2018 dated 22.03.2018, which was assailed by the respondents before
the learned Tribunal. The respondents have averred that it has been held
by this Court that the petitioner department has itself violated the
Recruitment Rules by picking and choosing their blue-eyed candidates
and placing them in the higher pay scale of 5,150-8,300/ retrospectively
from their initial dates of appointment and the judgment has been upheld
by the Apex Court as well. The petitioner-department has even
implemented various orders passed in similar cases. Against the order
WP(C) No.2828/2023 Page 3 of 5
passed in SWP No.1717/2009 titled “Gurvinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State
of J&K in respect of some cases, LPA(SW) No.27 of 2017 was preferred
but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court. The
judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
vide SLP (Dairy No.41169 of 2017) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India vide order dated 02.07.2018 dismissed the SLP. Besides, in another
identical matter bearing SWP No. 1279/2013 titled “Sheikh Abdul
Rashid & Ors. Vs. State“, the judgement dated 28.03.2014 passed by the
learned Single Judge, was challenged before the Division Bench of this
court, but the LPASW No. 84/2016 was dismissed vide order dated
14.02.2019. The order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench
of this , was assailed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the
medium of SLP (Civil Diary No. 39064/2019 but that too, was dismissed
vide order dated 09.12.2019. It is also the stand of the respondents that
once the department has placed other colleagues of the respondents in
the higher pay scale of Rs.5,150-8,300/, therefore, the same pay scale
cannot be denied to the respondents.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The only ground on which the petitioners are objecting to the
claim of the respondents is that in the advertisement notice, the pay scale
of Rs.4,000-6,000/ was mentioned and as the respondents had accepted
the same, they cannot take a U-turn subsequently and claim higher pay
scale.
WP(C) No.2828/2023 Page 4 of 5
7. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate before this
Corut as to how the claim of the respondents is different vis-à-vis other
Draftsmen who were granted relief by the Court by placing reliance upon
the decision of the learned Single Judge in Sham Paul Randhawa’s
case. The learned Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the distinction
attempted to be drawn between Sham Paul Randhawa‘s case and the
case projected by the respondents, cannot be accepted, as they belong to
the same cadre of Draftsman. The respondents have placed on record the
judgment passed by this court in LPASW No.84/2016 dated 14.02.2019,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. The SLP
preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. The case of the
respondents is squarely covered not only by the judgment of Sham Paul
Randhawa‘s case but also the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in LASW No.84/2016. Once the petitioners by complying
the judgments in similar cases, have granted the benefit to the similarly
situated Draftsmen, the same relief cannot be denied to the respondents.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned and any reason to show indulgence. This writ
petition is found to be misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Srinagar
15.05.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: No
WP(C) No.2828/2023 Page 5 of 5
[ad_1]
Source link