HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 473/2025 CM No. 1107/2025 1. Union Territory of J&K through, Financial Commissioner, Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu 2. The Director, Health Services, Jammu 3. The Principal Govt. Medical College, Jammu ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG Vs Dr. Bharti Devi Thaker D/o Roshan Lal R/O 155/8, Shiv Vihar Janipur Colony Jammu, presently posted as Lecturer, Department of Pathology, Government Medical College, Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench in O.A. No. 61/109/2020 titled “Dr. Bharti Devi Thaker Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” 2. It is contended that the respondent herein was appointed as Assistant Surgeon (Medical Officer) pursuant to Govt. Order No. 592-HME of 2011 dated 28.10.2011, after completion of her M.D. course she submitted her joining report on 02.06.2014 before the respondent No. 3. It is further contended that on 19.06.2018 the respondent herein made a representation to the Principal Secretary to Govt. of J&K, Health and Medical Education Department for treating her period of post graduation as on deputation in light of Govt. Order Sr. No. 13 2 WP(C) No. 473/2025 No. 673-HME of 2001 dated 24.09.2001, however, the respondents/petitioners herein have rejected the same vide order No. 227-JK (HME) of 2020 dated 16.03.2020. Aggrieved of the said rejection order, the applicant/respondent herein filed the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu and after hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents/petitioners herein to grant same relief as has been granted in the cases of others similarly situated, namely, (i) Dr. Ajay Anand, (ii) Dr. Shamim Anjum, (iii) Dr. Showkat Mehmood Choudhary, (iv) Dr. Jatinder Mehta, (v) Dr. Deeba Khan, (vi) Dr. Mohd. Arshad Bhat, (vii) Dr. Nikhil Mahajan, (viii) Dr. Sandeepika Dogra. 3. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG has, vehemently, argued that the respondents/petitioners herein have resisted the O.A. before the Tribunal by stating that the applicant is not similarly situated with the Dr. Ajay Anand and others, however, the Tribunal instead of considering the objections has passed the impugned order. 4. A perusal of order impugned dated 20.09.2024 whereby the learned Tribunal has ordered that the Department cannot adopt two yardsticks for the same class of employees and the respondents cannot discriminate among the similar situated people while sitting in Public Office and directed to grant same relief to the applicant as has been granted in the cases of the aforementioned Doctors, if she is similarly situated. 5. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2024, has only directed to grant the same relief as has been granted in the cases of others similar situated, if she is similarly situated. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a view other than 3 WP(C) No. 473/2025 the one taken by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition along with connected CM is, accordingly, dismissed and the judgment impugned is upheld. ( (MA Chowdhary) (Tashi Rabstan) Judge Chief Justice Jammu 03.03.2025 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No Pawan Angotra 2025.03.05 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document