HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) Case No.: WP(C) No. 3199/2019 Azad Ahmad Sheikh ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s) Through :- Mr. B A Zargar, Advocate v/s State of J&K and Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- None CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) ORDER 05.06.2026 1. In the petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs: i. A direction to the respondents to accord consideration for granting In-Situ Promotion under SRO-14 of 1996 dated 15.01.1996. ii. A direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a Sanitary Supervisor and also grant him the charge allowance for holding the said post. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in this petition is that he came to be engaged as a Safaiwala on consolidated wages in the year 1992 and was later regularized as a Sweeper in the pay scale of (2550-3200) with effect from 01.12.2001 in terms of order No. TAC/SPS/176/78 dated 16.05.2002. 3. It is submitted that having regard to his ailing health condition, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Council Sopore, allowed the petitioner to perform the lighter duty of Supervising the Sanitation Work in the Municipal Council Sopore vide order dated 14.01.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having been permitted to perform the duty of Sanitary Supervisor, the petitioner should be held entitled to charge allowance for performing the aforesaid duties. Sr. No.18 5. In the alternative, the petitioner submits that he having been regularly appointed as a Sweeper with effect from 01.12.2001, is stagnating on the post and has not been accorded higher standard pay in terms of SRO No. 14 of 1996. 6. On being put on notice, the respondents have contested this petition by filing their objections. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner, having been extended the concession of performing the lighter job instead of sweeping due to his ill health, cannot claim to hold the post of Sanitary Supervisor nor is he entitled to payment of any charge allowance. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner having gained entry in the Government Service through fictitious entries in the Service book, recorded therein with the connivance of the then Officer, is not entitled to any In-Situ Promotion under SRO No. 14 of 1996. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, it seems that as per the Service Book of the petitioner, maintained by the respondents, he has been continuously working as a Sweeper on substantive basis with effected from 01.12.2001 and has not been accorded any promotion, functional or non-functional, for more than two decades. 8. This Court is in agreement with the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is neither entitled to hold the post of Sanitation Supervisor nor is he entitled to any charge allowance. This is so because he was given the job of Sanitation in the Municipal Council Sopore keeping in view, his health condition which did not permit him to perform the job of a Sweeper. However, the right of the petitioner to be considered for In-Situ promotion in terms of SRO No. 14 of 1996, cannot be denied. 9. This Court would have appreciated, had the respondents initiated any inquiry with regard to alleged fictitious entries in the Service Book or against the Officer, who had made such entries without there being any formal order of regularization of the petitioner. 10. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner, who had been performing the duties of Sweeper since the year 1992, was, therefore, entitled to regularization upon completion of seven years in terms of SRO No. 64 of 1994. If that be the position, as it is, it cannot be contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization of his services or that the entry of regularization made in the Service Book is fictitious or doubtful. 11. The stand of the respondents in this regard is, therefore, without any basis and cannot, therefore, be accepted. 12. For all these reasons, this petition is allowed to the extent that petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of In-Situ promotion(s) as envisaged under SRO No. 14 of 1996, for, he has been stagnating on the post of Sweeper since 01.12.2001. 13. Let the respondents take up the case of the petitioner for consideration of In- situ promotion(s) in terms of SRO 14 of 1996 and pass appropriate orders in consonance with the rules within a period of three months, from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. Needless to say, the petitioner would also be entitled to the arrears of payment which would accrue to him upon grant of such In-Situ promotion(s). (SANJEEV KUMAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (A) JAMMU 05.06.2026 Suraj K. Singh