ADIL BASHIR v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (POWER DEVELOPMENT / KPDCL)
WP(C)/3325/2025 · 2026-08-04
Sanjay Dhar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1379 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1379 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 60 Regular Cause List.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR *******
WP(C) 3325/2025.
ADIL BASHIR.
…Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Abdul Manan, Advocate
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS.
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikandar, AAG.
…Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER 04-08-2026
01.
The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, is seeking a direction upon the respondents to release the unpaid wages in his favour from 1st of February 2019 till date.
02.
The respondents have filed objections to the writ petition, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner, along with other persons, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, by way of O.A. No. 45 of 2020, seeking similar relief. The said O.A came to be disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in terms of order dated 17th of June 2020, whereby the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioners therein by passing a well-reasoned and speaking order.
03.
It has further been submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents passed a Consideration
Order dated 16th of July 2020, whereby the claim of the petitioner, along with claims of other persons, for release of unpaid wages were rejected. A copy of the
consideration order has also been placed on record. In the consideration order passed by the respondents, it has been recorded that the petitioner, along with the other persons, were not working with the respondents and, therefore, they are not entitled to any wages.
04.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the Consideration Order dated 16th of July 2020 passed by the respondents and as such, he has filed the present writ petition.
05.
Be that as it may, once the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner had not worked with them and they have rejected his claim for release of wages by passing a detailed Consideration Order dated 16th of July 2020, this Court cannot direct the respondents to release the wages in favour of the petitioner unless the said Consideration Order dated 16th of July, 2020, is put to challenge by the petitioner.
06.
In view of the above, the Writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the Consideration Order dated 16th of July 2020 passed by the respondents, by way of appropriate proceedings.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR 04-08-2026 Showkat Khan