Sr. No. 44 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2991/2025 UT of J&K and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG V/s Kamaljit Bedi and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 29.10.2025 01. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 14.08.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (“the Tribunal”), in Original Application No. 879/2024 titled “Kamaljit Bedi v/s Finance Department.” 02. The respondents preferred an OA in Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking quashing of Govt. Order No. 185-F of 2010 dated 07.06.2010 and also quashing the communication dated 02.07.2010 issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to the extent it is being made applicable to the applicant on the wrong interpretation of law and facts, and direction upon respondents particularly respondent No. 5 to release House Allowance Rent (HRA) in favour of the applicants, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 03. The Tribunal vide interim order dated 14.08.2024 directed that the impugned order shall not be given effect qua the applicants. 04. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG submits that the interim order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 879/2024 is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The Tribunal erred in applying the HRA rules, as the respondent’s place of posting lies outside Jammu Municipal Corporation limits, rendering them ineligible for higher HRA rates. Moreover, the Tribunal relied on interim orders from unrelated cases and ignored statutory notifications and Government Orders, which has caused an unnecessary financial burden on the State. It is further submitted that an application seeking vacation of interim order has already been filed before the Tribunal. 05. Having regard to the pleadings and submissions made at the bar, and the fact that application for vacation of interim order is already pending consideration before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. However, we request the learned Tribunal to consider and decide the application for vacation of stay pending in OA No. 879/2024, within a period of four weeks. In the event the application is not decided within the stipulated period, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court. 06. Accordingly, this writ petition is, disposed of, along with connected application(s). (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu: 29.10.2025 Shafqat