Serial No. 1 Supp. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 5/2025 in WP(C) 116/2024 Union Territory of J and K and Anr. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s). Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA. Vs. Sushma And Ors ...Respondent(s). Through: Mr. Aswad J Attar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 07.11.2025 1. This is a petition by Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and one other seeking review of the order and judgment dated 26th November, 2024, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 116/2024. The review is sought primarily on the ground that the learned counsel who represented the respondents before the Division Bench was not authorized to make any statement including the one that the case of the non-applicants/writ petitioners was covered by the judgment passed in SWP No. 1911/2013. 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge, it would be apt to set out the operative part of the said judgment: “11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, and after due consideration of the factual issues involved, we are inclined to allow the present petition in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 20.07.2016 passed in SWP No. 1911/2013. 2. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 20.07.2016 passed in SWP No.1911/2013 and the respondents are directed to grant similar relief to the petitioners herein, as was granted to the petitioners in SWP No. 1911/2013, provided that the petitioners herein are found to be similarly situated to those in SWP No. 1911/2013. Consequently, the order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in T.A. No. 9323/2020 is set aside.” 3. From reading of Para 12, it clearly transpires that the Division Bench of this Court which passed the judgment under review did not place any reliance upon the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants (respondents herein) and directed the consideration of the case of the writ petitioners on the analogy of the petitioners in SWP No. 1911/2013 provided the writ petitioners were found similarly situated with the writ petitioners in SWP No. 1911/2013. 4. In that view of the matter, the grievance projected by the applicants in this Review Petition is totally misconceived. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/applicants could not point out any error or defect apparent on the face of record in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 4. This Review Petition is apparently without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. (SANJAY DHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.11.2025 “Shahid Manzoor”