Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 5390

Abdul Rashid Parray vs State Of J&K & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar · Decided on 18 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
CASE NUMBER
T.A. 3069/2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 663 words

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral

01/ Through the medium of this petition, which was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar, numbered as SWP 1327/2018 and admitted to hearing vide order dated 27-06-2018 and ultimately transferred to this bench of CAT as T.A. 3069/2021, the petitioner has sought the following relief :

“The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction commanding the respondents to release the increments in favour of the petitioner since May, 2014 till date with further direction to the respondents to pay the gross pay to the petitioner inclusive of yearly increments from 2014 along with arrears.”

02/ What emerges from the pleadings in this TA are that petitioner has been working as Sg. Constable No. 666/A in the police department. He was placed under suspension by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Anantnag vide order NO. 980 of 2013 dated 07-10-2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry of the petitioner and one ASI, Ghulam Hassan was initiated, which was entrusted to the Chief Prosecuting Officer, District Police Office Anantnag and, accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to remain attached with the District Police Lines, Anantnag.

03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the In-Charge Chief Prosecution Officer, Anantnag, framed the charge sheet against the petitioner and served the same to him for his reply. However, the petitioner was reinstated by the Superintendent of Police vide order No. 604 of 2014 dated 20-05-2014. It is stated that the petitioner was under suspension for a period of seven months, which period has not been decided so far.

04/ Shorn of details in the petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to release the increments in his favour as he has earned the same since May, 2014.

05/ Reply stands filed in the matter by the SSP, Anantnag, wherein it is averred that case FIR 60/2013, u/s. 8/20 NDPS Act has been registered in Police Station, Srigufwara on 28-09-2013, and FIR 83/2013, has also been registered in the same police station u/s. 8/20 NDPS Act against the petitioner, which was under investigation at the relevant point of time. It is stated that the petitioner has since been retired by the competent authority, prematurely. Learned counsel submitted that in the reply filed by the SSP, Anantnag, on affidavit, reference has been made to paragraph (4) of the reply, wherein it has been averred that there are criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner and as soon as same are finalized, claim of the petitioner will be decided accordingly.

06/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the FIRs, the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction, i.e. Principal Session Judge Anantnag, on 09-12-2019 in FIR 60/2013. The petitioner has also been acquitted in FIR No. 83/2013 by the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Anantnag on 12-06-2025, photocopies of the Acquittal Orders have been produced by the learned counsel in the open court today and same shall form part of the record.

07/ In the aforementioned backdrop, given the facts and circumstances of the case and at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, court is of the opinion, that no purpose will be served to keep this matter pending when, already, it has been pending adjudication for more than seven years. Accordingly, it is provided that the respondents will consider case of the petitioner in the light of paragraph (4) of the reply filed by the SSP, Anantnag, which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit, and pass a detailed and speaking order in the matter within a period of six weeks from today.

08/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this T.A 3069/2021, shall stand, disposed, of accordingly, along with connected M.As.

09/ Before parting, it is provided that in case the competent authority so feels, they can provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well.