Ghulam Hassan Dar vs U.T Of J&K Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a citizen of India and resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and is entitled to the fundamental, statutory and legal rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India and the laws made thereunder.

It is submitted that the applicant, while working as an Assistant Lineman (ALM) on regular/substantive basis, was granted the benefit of upgradation under SRO-59 of 1990 dated 06.02.1990 in terms of Order No. PHE/Estt/16854-55 dated 21.11.2016 issued by the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2, and endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal^{Superintending Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, Kupwara,} respondent No. 3. The relevant entry was thereafter made and attested by respondent No. 4 in the applicant’s Service Book. It is submitted that the said benefit was granted on the basis of the clarification issued by the Finance Department vide No. A/29(96)1-92 dated 08.01.2014.

It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant’s pay was re-fixed from time to time by extending the benefits admissible to him under the Government SROs and other Government orders. However, sometime in the year 2024, while respondent No. 4 was the custodian of his Service Book, the applicant’s salary was reduced. On enquiry, he was informed that the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 granted to him had been cancelled and his pay had been stepped down with effect from 01.12.2023 and fixed in a lower grade. An entry to this effect was made in his Service Book.

The applicant submits that he approached the respondents and sought a copy of the order on the basis of which the Central Administrative Tribunal^{said benefit had been cancelled, but was informed that no} such order had been issued. He thereafter sought a complete copy of his Service Book and, upon obtaining the same, came to know of the entry regarding cancellation of the benefit and stepping down of his pay. The applicant states that he was attaining the age of superannuation in April, 2025 and, therefore, approached the respondents for appropriate action.

It is submitted that the applicant’s pay, which had ultimately been fixed in the grade of Rs. 29200-92300, was reduced to the lower grade of Rs. 18000-56900. According to the applicant, respondent No. 4 had no competence to cancel the benefit granted by the competent authority and to re-fix his pay without issuance of any formal order or affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the action was taken behind his back and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The applicant further submits that he approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking restoration of the benefit Central Administrative Tribunal^{of SRO-59 of 1990, payment of arrears and forwarding of} his pension case to respondent No. 5 for settlement of his pension, gratuity, G.P. Fund and other service benefits. It is further submitted that he was informed that the excess amount allegedly drawn by him on account of the benefit granted under SRO-59 of 1990 was proposed to be calculated and recovered from his pensionary benefits and that his pension case would be forwarded without the benefit of the said SRO.

The applicant has challenged the aforesaid action, inter alia, on the ground that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was granted by the competent authority after obtaining clarification from the Finance Department and that there was no misrepresentation, fraud or fault on his part. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 was not competent to withdraw the said benefit or reduce the applicant’s pay, particularly without following the prescribed procedure and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the respondents cannot recover any Central Administrative Tribunal^{amount from the applicant on account of the benefit} granted to him under SRO-59 of 1990, particularly when the same was granted by the respondents themselves and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part.

The applicant has also challenged the reference made by respondent No. 4 to Government Circular SO-129 of 2022, contending that the same has no application to his case. It is further submitted that the impugned action is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The applicant has accordingly sought quashing of the action of the respondents in withdrawing/cancelling the benefit of upgradation granted to him under SRO-59 of 1990 and stepping down his pay, restoration of the said benefit with effect from the date of cancellation along with arrears, re-fixation of his salary and consequential service benefits, and appropriate directions for settlement of his pension case and release of his pensionary/retiral benefits. He has also sought a direction restraining the Central Administrative Tribunal^{respondents from recovering any amount on account of} the benefit extended under SRO-59 of 1990.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid claims may be considered by the respondents in the light of the judgments relied upon by him, including Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, and Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, WP(C) No. 1730/2020 (O&M) c/w CCP(S) No. 32/2021, decided on 02.06.2022, as also the applicable rules governing the field.

Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, and Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on advance notice, submit that the respondents also place reliance upon the judgments rendered in Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, Central Administrative Tribunal^{WP(C) No. 1730/2020 (O&M) c/w CCP(S) No. 32/2021,} High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, decided on 02.06.2022 and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, particularly with regard to the competence of the Department to correct an erroneous pay fixation and the consequential action that may be taken in accordance with the applicable rules. They submit that the claims raised by the applicant are required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules governing the field. They, however, submit that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application Central Administrative Tribunal^{pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made} on behalf of the applicant.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.

With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

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