Ghulam Nabi Khan vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

Ghulam Nabi Khan, Age 63 Years S/o Khawaja Sarandaz Khan R/o Manzgam Kupwara; Pin Code: 193224; Mobile No:

……Applicant By Advocate : Mr. Bhat Fayaz along with Ms. Aasifa Mughal Central Administrative Tribunal VERSUS

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as a General Line Teacher way back in the year 1989 and came to be promoted as Master on 03.08.2006. It is submitted that the applicant submitted his service particulars, duly authenticated by the Principal, Central Administrative Tribunal Government Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, on 22.02.2023, clearly indicating his date of appointment, date of promotion as Master and subsequent promotion as In-charge Lecturer in the year 2019. Learned counsel submits that, in any event, the applicant was due for his second in-situ promotion in the year 2006, but the same has not been granted till date. A copy of the said service particulars has been placed on record as Annexure A-3. 02.Learned counsel further submits that the applicant once again submitted a representation dated 28.02.2024, along with his service particulars duly authenticated by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kupwara. A copy of the said particulars has been placed on record as Annexure A-4.

It is further submitted that the applicant's case was taken up for consideration in the year 2021 pursuant to the representation submitted by him. During such consideration, it was observed that the applicant had been Central Administrative Tribunal^{paid salary in the Master's grade with effect from the year} 2006, although his promotion was reflected as having been made in the year 2007. The Chief Accounts Officer, Directorate of School Education, vide observation dated 13.07.2021, further observed that the applicant's case for second in-situ promotion, which had become due prior to his promotion as Master, ought to be placed before the DPC at the district level for consideration, and the case was returned accordingly.

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid observation was duly clarified by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Kupwara, in the year 2021. It was clarified that although the applicant's promotion was recorded in the service book with effect from the year 2007, the same was incorrect, as the applicant had not received any arrears for the period from 08.06.2006 to 02.08.2007 and his pay was actually drawn only with effect from 03.08.2007. The applicant's correct pay fixation was accordingly submitted before the Chief Central Administrative Tribunal^{Education Officer concerned, who, in turn, forwarded the} same to the Directorate vide communication dated 17.11.2021. Copies of the observation dated 13.07.2021 and the reply/clarification furnished by the Principal through the Chief Education Officer, Kupwara, have been placed on record as Annexures A-5 and A-6, respectively. 05.Learned counsel further submits that once the aforesaid observation stood duly clarified, the respondents ought to have considered the applicant's claim for grant of second in-situ promotion, which, according to the applicant, had become due with effect from 2006 in terms of SRO 14 of 1996. However, despite repeated representations, the said claim has not been considered till date. It is submitted that the applicant has also specifically highlighted the disparity in salary between himself and his counterpart, Ghulam Mohammad Payer, who is stated to be drawing higher pay and consequently higher pension.

Learned counsel submits that, independently of the claim for in-situ promotion, the applicant is also entitled to Central Administrative Tribunal^{consideration of his claim for stepping-up of pay under} Article 77-B of the J&K CSR, introduced vide SRO 18 dated 19.01.1988, read with SRO 225 dated 18.08.2005 and SRO 22 dated 01.07.2012. It is submitted that the applicant had placed the relevant provisions and supporting material before the Chief Education Officer as far back as the year 2023, but no action has been taken thereon till date. The representation forming Annexure A-1 is stated to be a comprehensive representation setting out the claim of the applicant regarding the salary fixation and the consequential benefits claimed by him.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has also submitted his posting details against the post of In-charge Lecturer, along with his APRs for the last five years, which were forwarded to the Director, School Education, by the Chief Education Officer, Kupwara, vide communication dated 12.03.2024. A copy of the said communication has been placed on record as Annexure A-

Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been continuously pursuing his grievance through representations dated 03.04.2023, 28.02.2024 and 11.02.2026, but the respondents have failed to pass any final and reasoned order thereon. It is contended that the denial of the benefit of in-situ promotion has resulted in the applicant receiving lower pay and pension as compared to his similarly placed counterparts. It is further submitted that the claim constitutes a continuing cause of action, particularly as the alleged deprivation continues to affect the applicant's salary and pension, and that the grant Central Administrative Tribunal^{of in-situ promotion would neither create any third-party} interest nor alter the seniority of any other employee.

Learned counsel also submits that the respondents' failure to consider the applicant's repeated representations and the material placed on record, including his authenticated service particulars, APRs and departmental correspondence, amounts to non-consideration of his legitimate grievances. It is submitted that the applicant has exhausted the departmental remedy available to him by approaching the concerned authorities from time to time, but his grievances have not been finally decided.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the grievances and claims raised therein, together with the documents annexed thereto, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{11.Mr. Satinder Singh, learned AAG, appearing on advance} notice, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. 12.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 pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant.

Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant, this Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the rival claims of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and examine and decide the grievances and claims raised by the applicant therein, including his claim for grant of second in-situ promotion with effect from 08.06.2006 in Central Administrative Tribunal^{terms of SRO 14 of 1996, as well as his claim for} stepping-up of pay, in terms of Article 77-B of the J&K CSR read with SRO 18 dated 19.01.1988, SRO 225 dated 18.08.2005 and SRO 22 dated 01.07.2012, along with the representations, service particulars, APRs, departmental correspondence and other documents placed on record, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so.

The respondents shall pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them and communicate the same to the applicant.

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), Central Administrative Tribunal^{if any, shall also stand disposed of.}

No order as to costs.

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