WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 09.12.2025 Pronounced on: 26.12.2025 Uploaded on: 26.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w i)WP(C) No.1011/2023 ii)WP(C) No.2551/2023 GHULAM MOHAMMAD PEER & ORS. GHULAM JEELANI HAQAA & ANR. ALI MOHAMMAD BHAT ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) By this common judgment, afore-titled three writ petitions, which involve the determination of identical issues, are proposed to be disposed of. (i) In WP(C) No.1689/2023, the petitioners have challenged order No.1163-GAD of 2018 dated 18.07.2018, whereby their intervening period with effect from 16.07.1999 to 11.11.2010 has been treated as on duty on notional basis. The petitioners have also sought a direction commanding the respondents to pay interest @12% per annum on the WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 unpaid salary for the period with effect from 16.07.1999 to 11.11.2010. (ii) In WP(C) No.1011/2023, the petitioners have challenged order No.RCS/LS/13 dated 27.02.2019, whereby their claim as projected vide their writ petition bearing SWP No.1707/2018, has been rejected. Challenge has also been thrown to order No.122-Adm of 2019 dated 18.07.2019 to the extent the intervening period of service of the petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 with effect from 07.04.2004 to 25.10.2007 has been decided as on duty on notional basis. The petitioners have further sought a direction upon the respondents commanding them to pay unpaid salary in their favour from December, 1998 to 26.10.2007, along with interest @12% per annum and give them same treatment as has been accorded to the petitioners in SWP No.812/2008 in terms of judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed in CPSW No.718/2017 upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.239/2022 vide order dated 25th August, 2022. (iii) In WP(C) No.2551/2023, the petitioner has challenged order No.185-LC of 2022 dated 21.09.2022, whereby his intervening period with effect from 15.07.1999 to 22.11.2010 has been decided as on duty on notional basis. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents commanding them to pay his unpaid salary from 15.07.1999 to 22.11.2010 along with interest @12% per annum and give him the same treatment as has been accorded to the petitioners of SWP WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 No.812/2008 in terms of judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed in CPSW No.718/2017 upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.239/2022 vide order dated 25th August, 2022. 2) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners were ex-employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited (CONFED) which was wound up in the year 1999 in terms of Cabinet decision dated 15.07.1999. The said decision provided for winding up of the CONFED and it was also stipulated that the employees would be suitably adjusted. The department was directed to submit a detailed proposal at the earliest. Another Cabinet decision was taken on 24.04.2002 and it was decided that a Golden Handshake Scheme for Cooperative institutions should be financed from sale of their assets and government funding would not be available for this purpose. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioners of Jammu and Kashmir were asked to evaluate the assets of the Apex Cooperative institutions and submit a report to the Government. 3) It is case of the petitioners that some erstwhile employees of CONFED including the petitioners herein did not opt for of Golden Handshake Scheme and they insisted WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 for their suitable adjustment in terms of Cabinet decision dated 15.07.1999. 4) It seems that about 134 employees of CONFED filed a writ petition titled Mohammad Yousuf Magray & Ors. vs. State & Ors (SWP No.1839/1999) before this Court and the same came to be disposed of in terms of judgment dated 30.09.2005, with the following directions: 1) The Government shall implement the Cabinet Decision No. 109/12 dated 15.07.1999 and for that purpose should constitute a committee of officers within a period of one month from the date copy of the order is served on the respondents. 2) The committee so constituted shall look into the suitability of the petitioners for their permanent adjustment in the Govt. Department. The committee shall find out as to whether the petitioners were suitable for their adjustment in the Govt. department i.e. whether they fulfill the other conditions such as qualification, health conditions, permanent residence etc. for Govt. employment. Those who are found suitable, should be offered posts commensurate with their qualification and the pay scale which they were holding in the CONFED. Those not found suitable for government job due to lack of qualification or any other reasonable cause shall be offered the Golden Handshake and for that purpose scheme be formulated within a period of three months from the date of the order is served on the Respondents. 3) Those employees of the CONFED who have at any stage accepted the offer or asked for the Golden Handshake Scheme shall be given the benefit of the same and modalities thereof shall be formulated within three months from the date this order is served on the respondents. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of." 5) The aforesaid judgment came to be challenged by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir by way of LPA WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 No.294/2005 and the same was disposed of on 08.05.2006, in terms of the following directions: “We, accordingly, dispose of this appeal by providing that the report submitted by the Committee constituted by appellants in compliance to the impugned Writ Court judgment shall be placed before the Cabinet within two months from the date..." 6) Ten employees of the erstwhile CONFED including petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 (petitioners in WP(C) No.1011/2023) were adjusted in the Cooperative Department in terms of order No.26-COOP of 2007 dated 26.10.2007 as these ten employees did not opt for Golden Handshake Scheme. These employees were adjusted against the posts of Junior Supervisors/Sub-Auditors in the Cooperative Department. Out of the ten employees adjusted in the Cooperative Department, five employees, namely, Mohammad Ibrahim Peerzada, Mohammad Nayeem Shah, Gh. Ahmad Reshi, Gh. Hassan Najar and Gh. Nabi Wani, filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.812/2008 claiming arrears of salary with effect from August, 1999 upto 26.10.2007, the date when they were permanently absorbed in the Cooperative Department. They also claimed reckoning of service rendered by them in the CONFED towards their total period of service, with a further relief to place them in the same grade in which they were working in the CONFED. The remaining five employees including the WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 petitioners in WP(C) No.1011/2023 filed another writ petition bearing SWP No.1387/2008 seeking a similar relief. 7) Writ petition bearing SWP No.812/2008 filed by the employees other than the petitioners herein was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 22.04.2011 in the following manner: “For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the petitioners in the grade in which they were working in the CONFED, release annual increments in said pay scales and pay arrears, if any, accruing to them in wake of such placement. The respondents are further directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered by them in the CONFED towards their total period of service, which they will spend in the Cooperative Department, after their permanent absorption and on that basis, consider their cases for time bound promotions and pensionery benefits.” 8) The aforesaid judgment came to be challenged by the State by way of LPA No.202/2011 and the same was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 06.08.2015 in the following manner: “6.... The Writ Court did not err in holding that service put in by the writ petitioners in the Federation did not get obliterated only because the State Government took a decision to wind up the Federation. The decision to wind up the Federation was further supplemented by the promise extended to the employees of the Federation that they will be suitably adjusted commensurate with their status, pay scales and career progression. The impugned judgment gives effect to the spirit of the Cabinet decision WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 and cannot be held to be conferring a benefit on the writ petitioners to which they would not have been entitled to as employees of the erstwhile Federation, had the same not been wound up." 7. In the aforementioned backdrop, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be flawed, warranting any interference. We, therefore, find that the appeal in hand lacks merit, which is, accordingly dismissed alongwith CMP. Interim directions, if any shall stand vacated forthwith." 9) The aforesaid judgment passed in the LPA was challenged by the respondent-State before the Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) No.17801/2016. The said SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 26.09.2016. 10) In the meanwhile, the Government issued order No.29- Coop of 2016 dated 16.08.2016 regarding implementation of judgment dated 22.04.2011 as upheld by the Division Bench. In the said order, it was provided that the writ petitioners in SWP No.812/2008 shall be placed in the Cooperative Department in the grades in which they were working in CONFED and the annual increments in said pay scales and pay arrears, if any, accruing to them upon such placement, be released in terms of the judgment of the High Court. It was also provided in the said order that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, J&K on placement of the writ petitioners, shall consider their timebound promotions WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 and pensionary benefits in terms of the judgment of the High Court. 11) Another order bearing No.69-Adm of 2016 dated 28.11.2016 was issued by respondent No.4, whereby certain benefits were released in favour of the petitioners of SWP No.812/2008. However, in the said order, there was no mention of release of arears from the years 1998/1999 to 2007. 12) When the respondents did not implement the judgment of the Court, the petitioners of SWP No.812/2008 were constrained to file a contempt petition in which the matter regarding payment of errors was clarified by the Court in terms of order dated 29-05-2019, passed in CPSW 718/2017, the operative portion whereof is reproduced as under: “In view of the above, we direct the respondents to forthwith compute the arrears of salary which are admissible to the petitioners upon their placement in the grade in which they were working in the CONFED w.e.f. December 1998 to 26th October 2007 and immediately communicate the same to the petitioners. Arrears which would accrue to the petitioners upon such computation shall be positively released within a period of eight weeks thereafter.” 13) The aforesaid observations of this Court passed in the contempt petition were upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2022. The said appeal was dismissed by WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 25-08-2022, the operative portion whereof reads as under: “We, therefore, find no merit in the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. However, we are keeping the matter pending so far as to ensure the compliance with the directions issued by the High Court. The poor employees have been dragged by the mighty State in three rounds of litigations. In that view of the matter, we direct the appellant to pay the arrears to the respondents as directed by the High Court within a period of six weeks from today. 8. In case of non-compliance with the orders of the High Court, we will be constrained to take serious steps in the matter.” 14) Besides dismissing the appeal of the respondents, the Supreme Court posted the matter for awaiting compliance of the order of the Writ Court as upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. As a result of this, the respondents complied with the directions of the Court and the contempt proceedings were closed when the respondents made payment of dues in favour of writ petitioners of SWP No.812/2008. 15) Aforesaid narration of sequence of events associated with the writ petitioners of SWP No.812/2008 is essential, as the writ petitioners in the afore-titled three writ petitions are claiming parity with the writ petitioners of SWP No.812/2008. In order to determine as to whether the writ petitioners in the present three writ petitions are similarly situated with the writ petitioners of SWP No.812/2008, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts and WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 circumstances which led to the absorption of the writ petitioners in different departments of the government. 16) WP(C) No.1689/2023: 16.1. The petitioners of this petition are, admittedly, former employees of the erstwhile CONFED. These petitioners were absorbed in the J&K Secretariat Subordinate Services against available Class IV posts with effect from the date they had submitted their joining report in the General Administration Department, i.e., on 12th November 2010 in terms of Government Order No.53-GAD of 2011 dated 10th January 2011. When the writ petition bearing SWP No.812/2008 was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 22nd April 2011, the petitioners of this writ petition also filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1205 of 2011 and sought a similar relief on the ground that they are similarly situated employees. Vide judgment dated 10th February 2016, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed and it was held that their case is similar to the one in SWP No.812/2008. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as SWP No. 812/2008. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the respondents by way of LPA No. 131/2016, but the same was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 26th July 2016 WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 16.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Writ Court as upheld by the Division Bench, the Government issued Order No. 35-GAD of 2018 dated 4th January, 2018 and accorded sanction to the implementation of the judgment of the Division Bench, thereby giving benefit of grades which the petitioners were holding in the erstwhile CONFED, release of annual increments/pay arrears, counting of their past service in the erstwhile CONFED for the purpose of service benefits like in-situ promotion and pensionary benefits. However, on 18th July 2018, the respondents issued impugned Government Order No.1163- GAD of 2018, thereby treating the period from 16-07-1999 to 11-11-2010 of the petitioners as on duty on notional basis for the purpose of counting the said period towards pensionary benefit. This, according to the petitioners, is discriminatory in nature as the arrears of salary for the aforesaid period have not been paid to them, as have been paid to the writ petitioners of SWP No. 812 of 2008. 17. WP(C) No.1011/2023: 17.1 Petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 were admittedly the employees of the erstwhile CONFED. Petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 were adjusted against the post of Assistant Registrar/Junior Supervisor/Sub-Auditor in the Cooperative Department vide WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 Government Order No. 26-COOP of 2007 dated 26-10-2007. They joined services in the Cooperative Department with the effect form 28-01-2008 as they did not opt for Golden Handshake Scheme. While 5 out of 10 employees who had joined the Cooperative Department filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 812/2008 seeking service benefits for the period with the effect form August 1999 to 26-10-2007, other 5 employees who were absorbed in the Cooperative Department including petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 filed a separate petition bearing SWP No.1387/2008. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 30-09-2016. While disposing of the said writ petition, it was noted by the Court that in the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the petitioners’ case is similar to the writ petitioners of SWP No.812/2008 and the said writ petition having been allowed and affirmed in LPA and SLP, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order made in SWP No.812/2008 dated 22-04-2011 affirmed in LPA No.202 of 2011 dated 06-08-2015. 17.2 The respondents issued Government Order No.69- Adm of 2016 dated 28-11-2016, thereby according approval to the implementation of judgment dated 22-04-2011, passed in SWP No.812/2008 in totality in respect of petitioners of SWP No.1387/2008 also. WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 17.3 Another order came to be issued by the respondents being Order No.115-Adm of 2018 dated 23-10-2018, wherein no mention was made with regard to the period of service rendered by the petitioners in CONFED till 26-10-2007 while working out the arrears, perks/emoluments. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by way of writ petition bearing SWP No.1707/2018. Vide order dated 01.08.2018, the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to treat the petitioners equally with other similarly situated persons with respect to their services which they have rendered in CONFED and give all service benefits including arrears, perks emoluments to the petitioners. Thereafter, impugned order No.RCS/LS/13 dated 27-02-2019 came to be issued by the respondents, whereby claim of the petitioners was found to be devoid of merit and the same was rejected. 18. WP(C) No.2551/2023: 18.1 The petitioner is, admittedly, an ex-employee of the erstwhile CONFED. He was absorbed in the Labour and Employment Department against Class-IV post in terms of order dated 2nd December 2010. After the decision in SWP No. 812/2008 dated 22nd April 2011, the petitioner, claiming himself to be entitled to service benefits and monetary benefits for the period intervening between the closure of WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 erstwhile CONFED and his absorption in the Labuor and Employment Department, filed writ petition bearing SWP No.2571/2011. Vide order dated 13.02.2014, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of judgment dated 22nd April 2011 passed in SWP No.812/2008, provided the same was found to be applicable to the case of the writ petitioner. A review petition came to be filed by the respondents against the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2014, but vide order dated 29th March, 2016, the review petition came to be dismissed. The respondents issued order No.17-L&E dated 23rd February 2018, thereby according sanction to release of annual increments/pay arrears in favour of 13 persons, including the petitioner. However, the respondents thereafter issued impugned order bearing No. 155 -LC of 2022 dated 21st September, 2022, whereby period from 15.07.1999 to 22.11.2010 of the employees of erstwhile CONFED including the petitioner, was treated as on duty on notional basis for the purpose of counting of said period towards pensionary benefits only. 19. From the foregoing narration of facts of all the three writ petitions and the facts relating to SWP No.812/2008, it is clear that there is similarity between the writ petitioners of SWP No. 812/2018 and the present writ petitioners. The petitioners herein and the petitioners of SWP No.812/2008 WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 were the employees of erstwhile CONFED, which came to be wound up, whereafter they came to be absorbed in different departments of the Government. In the case of petitioners of SWP No.812/2008, after a long struggle and long litigation, they succeeded in getting all the service benefits including the monetary benefits for the period intervening between the closure of erstwhile CONFED and their absorption in Government departments. Therefore, per force, the petitioners in the present writ petitions are entitled to similar treatment, particularly when time and again the petitioners have been held entitled to similar treatment by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions filed by them. Thus, there is no option for the respondents but to give same treatment to the petitioners herein, as has been given to the petitioners of SWP No.812/2008. The impugned orders passed by the respondents, whereby intervening period between closure of the erstwhile CONFED and absorption of the petitioners in Government departments has been treated as on duty on notional basis, is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the orders of the Court and are, in fact, contemptuous in nature. The same, therefore, deserve to be quashed. 20. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners herein are similarly situated with the petitioners in SWP No.812/2008, WP(C) No.1689/2023 c/w WP(C) No.1011/2023 & WP(C) No.2551/2023 as such, similar directions deserve to be passed in their favour. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.07.2018, 27.07.2019, and 21.09.2022, are quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to determine the exact period for which the salary of the petitioners has remained unpaid due to winding up of the CONFED. After ascertaining the date upto which the petitioners have received salary as employees of the CONFED, the respondents shall disburse the arrears of salary upto the date the petitioners were absorbed in different posts borne on the cadre of the Government. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon them, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petitions till the release of arears of salary. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 26.12.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the judgment is speaking: YES Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO