HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through virtual mode from Srinagar) WP(C) No. 2095/2025 CM No. 4773/2025 CAV No. 1054/2025 UT of J&K and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG V/s Sanjay Kumar …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate. Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for Caveator. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 CAV No. 1054/2025 With the appearance of Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, the caveat stands discharged. WP(C) No. 2095/2025 01. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against orders dated 08.04.2025, 29.04.2025 and 07.05.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (for short ‘Tribunal’), in Original Application No. 404/2025 (Jammu), titled “Sanjay Kumar vs. General Administrative Department.” 02. The respondent claiming to be engaged as Waterman-cum-Sweeper in Government Model Middle School, Mahanpur, Kathua, preferred a writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 1791/2013 seeking regularization of his services as Class-IV employee and payment of minimum wages. The said petition, WP(C) No. 2095/2025 along with the contempt petition, were transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 187/2024 (Jammu) and T.A. No. 237/2024, titled ‘Sanjay Kumar vs. State (UT) School Education Department & Ors.’ which are still sub-judice. 03. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, directions were also issued for payment of minimum wages to the respondent, but the same were not implemented despite repeated orders. While the matter was sub judice, the respondent was not allowed to mark his attendance, therefore, an application (CM No. 7182/2022) was filed by the respondent, wherein vide order dated 01.12.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners assured this Court that the respondent would be allowed to mark his presence, however, the services of the respondent were subsequently disengaged vide Order No. ZEO/MP/1687-97 dated 31.12.2024, on the ground that he was not being allowed to perform his duties. 04. The respondent challenged the aforesaid disengagement before the Tribunal by way of the Original Application (O.A.), seeking quashment of the order and other consequential reliefs. The Tribunal, as an interim measure, vide order dated 08.04.2025, stayed the operation of Order No. ZEO/MP/1687-97 dated 31.12.2024 till the next date of hearing and directed that the respondent be permitted to continue discharging his duties. The petitioners were also directed to release wages to the respondent in terms of the Minimum Wages Act. The Tribunal, vide impugned orders dated 08.04.2025, 29.04.2025 and 07.05.2025, directed the C.E.O, Kathua to allow the applicant/respondent to work and failure to comply would result in appearance in person and issuance of ROBKAR. WP(C) No. 2095/2025 05. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned interim orders on the ground that the same have been passed by ignoring their contention that neither any order of engagement exists in favour of the respondent nor any such order has been produced by the respondent himself before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that despite absence of any engagement order and the fact that the respondent is not working against a sanctioned post, the petitioners are being compelled to work on his duty and pay minimum wages to him despite the fact that he is not entitled to the same. The respondent, according to them, is not entitled for any payment as he is not working on a sanctioned post. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 07. Be that as it may, the impugned orders dated 08.04.2025, 29.04.2025 and 07.05.2025 are only regarding complying of the interim direction. The petitioners are yet to file their response before the Tribunal, it is always open for them to seek modification or vacation of the aforesaid interim order, as the matter is yet to be finally adjudicated. 08. Learned counsel further submits that he will approach the Tribunal for vacation of the interim order and the Tribunal may be directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible as the next academic session is going to start soon. 09. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions made at the bar, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage, but keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we request the learned Tribunal to consider and decide the Original Application, or the application for vacation of stay pending in O.A. No. 404/2025, within a period of three WP(C) No. 2095/2025 weeks. In the event the application is not decided within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition, along with connected application(s) stands disposed of. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Srinagar: 04.09.2025 Ram Murti