Abdul Rehman Mir & Ors. vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed M.A. No. 1166/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said M.A. is allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are working as Lineman-II in the respondent-department and have rendered more than two decades of service with sincerity, dedication and devotion to their duties. It is submitted that, despite their long tenure and experience, the applicants have not been afforded an effective promotional avenue, resulting in stagnation in their service careers.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-department undertook the exercise of preparing the cadre seniority of the Executive Staff (Lineman-II) working in the pay scale of SL-2 (₹15,900–50,400) in District Cadre Central Administrative Tribunal^{Anantnag/Kulgam and issued a tentative seniority list} inviting objections from the concerned incumbents. The applicants were reflected at different serial numbers in the said tentative seniority list. It is submitted that, after consideration of the objections/representations received from the concerned incumbents, the respondent-department issued a final seniority list of Executive Staff (Lineman-II) of District Cadre Anantnag/Kulgam. It is stated that some of the applicants were retained in the final seniority list, whereas some of those whose names had figured in the tentative seniority list were not included in the final seniority list.

Learned counsel submits that the respondent-department had, in the past, followed a procedure under which Matriculate and ITI-trained employees were considered for promotion against the respective promotional quota and available vacancies. According to the applicants, the said practice continued up to the year 2018 and similarly situated employees belonging to the same cadre were Central Administrative Tribunal^{considered and promoted thereunder. In support of the} aforesaid submission, learned counsel refers to Order No. SE/EM&RE/DPC/37 of 2018 dated 18.10.2018 issued by the Chairman, District Level Departmental Promotion Committee, Anantnag/Kulgam, whereby, pursuant to Government Order No. 18-PDD dated 23.01.2015 and the decision taken in the 2nd District Level Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 01.09.2018, twenty Matriculate Executive Staff working in the pay band of ₹4440–7440 with Grade Pay of ₹1400 were temporarily promoted/placed in the pay scale of ₹5200– 20200 with Grade Pay of ₹1900 against the post of Meter Reader and posted against available vacancies.

It is submitted that the applicants approached the concerned authorities seeking consideration of their cases on the basis of the aforesaid procedure and were assured that their cases would be considered as and when vacancies arose. The applicants, relying upon the said assurance, continued to await consideration of their cases. Central Administrative Tribunal^{However, according to learned counsel, despite vacancies} subsequently becoming available in the relevant promotional posts, no effective action was taken by the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion.

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid departmental record demonstrates that Matriculate Executive Staff had, in the past, been considered for promotion against available vacancies and that twenty similarly situated employees were granted such benefit in the year 2018. The applicants claim that, being similarly situated Matriculate Lineman-II employees, they are also entitled to fair and lawful consideration of their cases in accordance with the applicable rules and the procedure followed by the department.

It is further submitted that the Chief Engineer, Distribution, KPDCL, vide communication dated 27.12.2025 addressed to the Managing Director, KPDCL, made a proposal that a suitable percentage, preferably 5– 10%, be kept under the promotion quota for Central Administrative Tribunal^{Matriculate/higher-qualified incumbents who are not ITI} qualified, keeping in view their academic qualifications. Learned counsel submits that the said proposal demonstrates that the competent authority itself has recognised the issue concerning promotional avenues for Matriculate/non-ITI employees and has proposed a mechanism for addressing the same.

Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid proposal assumes significance in the case of the applicants as they belong to the category of Matriculate Lineman-II employees and, according to them, their promotional avenues are not adequately accommodated under the existing/proposed framework. It is submitted that the proposal for earmarking 5–10% of posts under the promotion quota requires consideration by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative framework.

It is further submitted that the issue was thereafter brought to the notice of the respondent-authorities through a Central Administrative Tribunal^{detailed representation submitted by the J&K Non-}Gazetted Electrical Employees Association dated 10.03.2026, raising the grievance concerning the promotional avenues of Matriculate Executive Staff/Lineman-II employees and seeking appropriate consideration of their cases for promotion against available higher posts.

Learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid representation, the Superintending Engineer, O&M, KPDCL Circle Bijbehara, vide communication No. SE/O&M/Bij/AS/102 dated 03.04.2026 addressed to the Chief Engineer, Distribution, KPDCL, Srinagar, brought on record the grievance of Matriculate Executive Staff/Lineman-II/Junior Lineman and stated that representations had been received from such employees seeking consideration of their cases for promotion against higher posts of Meter Reader/Tech-III.

It is further submitted that the aforesaid communication also referred to the availability of vacancies against the Central Administrative Tribunal^{higher posts of Tech-III and Meter Reader in the} concerned Circle. According to learned counsel, the availability of such vacancies is relevant to the grievance raised by the applicants, particularly when their cases have already been brought to the notice of the competent authorities and the department itself has proposed an appropriate promotional mechanism for Matriculate/non-ITI incumbents.

Learned counsel submits that, when the aforesaid departmental communications and other material are read together, it becomes apparent that the grievance raised by the applicants is not merely individual in nature. According to the applicants, the respondent-department itself has recognised the difficulty in providing promotional avenues to Matriculate/non-ITI incumbents, a proposal for earmarking 5–10% promotional quota has been made by the competent departmental authority, representations have been submitted by the affected employees, and the availability of vacancies in the higher Central Administrative Tribunal^{posts has also been brought on record.}

It is submitted that the applicants do not seek promotion in disregard of the applicable service conditions or eligibility requirements. Rather, they seek consideration of their cases in accordance with the applicable rules and the promotional procedure earlier followed by the department in respect of similarly situated employees. They also seek appropriate consideration of the departmental proposal for providing a defined promotional avenue to Matriculate/non-ITI incumbents.

Learned counsel further submits that the inclusion of the applicants in the tentative and final seniority exercises, to the extent their names have been retained therein, is also relevant for consideration of their claim, as the same reflects their position in the cadre of Executive Staff (Lineman-II). It is submitted that their cases are required to be examined with reference to their cadre position, qualifications, seniority, experience, applicable rules and the availability of promotional vacancies.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{15.It is further submitted that, despite the departmental} proposal, representations made on behalf of the affected employees, communications exchanged between the concerned authorities and the availability of vacancies in the relevant promotional posts, no final decision has been taken regarding the proposed promotional quota for Matriculate/non-ITI employees. Consequently, according to the applicants, they continue to remain without an effective promotional avenue.

Learned counsel submits that the respondents are required to examine the aforesaid grievance and take an appropriate decision on the departmental proposal for providing a suitable promotional quota to Matriculate/non-ITI Lineman-II employees, while also considering the individual cases of the applicants in accordance with the applicable rules, their eligibility, seniority, qualifications, experience and the availability of vacancies.

It is contended that the failure of the respondents to Central Administrative Tribunal^{address the grievance, despite the matter having been} repeatedly brought to their notice and despite the applicants having rendered more than two decades of service, has caused continuing prejudice to them and has resulted in stagnation in their service careers.

Learned counsel submits that the applicants rely upon the settled principle that although an employee does not have a fundamental right to promotion as such, an eligible employee has a right to fair and lawful consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. It is submitted that the applicants accordingly seek consideration of their cases and not a direction for automatic promotion.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondents may examine the applicants' eligibility, seniority, qualifications, service record, availability of vacancies and all other relevant factors in accordance with the applicable rules. The applicants, according to learned counsel, only seek a meaningful opportunity of consideration and Central Administrative Tribunal^{appropriate action on the departmental proposal} concerning the promotional quota.

Learned counsel submits that the applicants have approached the competent authorities and submitted representations seeking consideration of their cases for promotion and appropriate action on the proposal for providing a promotional quota for Matriculate/non-ITI employees. According to learned counsel, despite the representations and the communications exchanged between the respondent-authorities, no final and effective decision has been communicated to the applicants, compelling them to approach this Tribunal.

Learned counsel submits that the applicants have not filed any other proceedings before this Tribunal or any other Court seeking the same or substantially similar reliefs and that the subject matter of the present Original Application is not pending adjudication before any other Court or Tribunal.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned Central Administrative Tribunal^{counsel for the applicants submits that the ends of justice} would be adequately served if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and consider the assertions made therein, along with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that, in view of the limited prayer now made by learned counsel for the applicants, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Central Administrative Tribunal^{Application pending for adjudication on merits.}

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation of the applicants and consider the claims and assertions made therein, together with the documents annexed thereto, including the departmental communications and representations relied upon by the applicants, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field.

The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order on the claims of the applicants within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall communicate the decision so taken to the applicants forthwith thereafter.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a direction to grant promotion to the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicants, create a promotional quota contrary to the} applicable rules, or confer upon the applicants any right to promotion dehors the statutory or applicable service framework. The competent authority shall consider the matter independently and in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

All questions of fact and law are accordingly left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the file to the Record Room after due compliance.