Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13435 (JK)

UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT v. SAJJAD HUSSAIN KANDU

WP(C)/1836/2025 · 2025-10-10

Sanjay Parihar, Sanjeev Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 1836/2025 UT of J & K & Ors. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s Sajjad Hussain Kandu .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. F A Natnoo, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 1 0. 1 0. 2 0 2 5 (Sanjeev Kumar J) 1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging an order and judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 61/1560/2023 titled “Sh. Sajjad Hussain Kandu Vs. Union Territory of J & K & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of the respondent and issued directions to the petitioners in terms of its earlier judgment titled Parveen Singh Vs. UT of J & K & Ors., passed in O.A. No. 61/1284/2021. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the Tribunal has not adjudicated on the issue whether the benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 was correctly given to the respondent or not and proceeded on the assumption that grant of benefit under SRO 149 of 1973 was erroneous. The Tribunal failed to address the issue, though, the same had been specifically pleaded in the OA. Sr. No. 38 2 WP (C) No. 1836/2025 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the Tribunal has disposed of the OA on the assumption that it was the case of wrong fixation of salary and because of the mistake not attributable to respondent, the Tribunal restrained the petitioners herein from recovering the amount received by the respondent under wrong fixation and also from going ahead with re-fixation in terms of the order impugned in the OA. 4. In view of the clear stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal to be adjudicated afresh, inter alia, on the issue of applicability of SRO 149 of 1973 to the case of respondent. 5. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 31.10.2025. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 10.10.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Manan Mahajan 2025.10.10 22:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document