Sr. No. 37 Suppl. List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1265/2025 CM(3363/2025) ABDUL RASHEED LONE AND ORS. ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate Vs. U.T OF J&K AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 30.05.2025 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking to challenge an interim order dated 19th May, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”], in OA No. 463/2025 titled “Abdul Rasheed Lone Vs. Public Works Department R&B”. 2. In the OA filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal, the petitioners have inter alia challenged the legal validity of circular dated 22nd April, 2025, and a communication dated 13th January, 2025, whereby the benefit of pay revision given to the petitioners in terms of SRO 59 of 1990 has been withdrawn. It is the grievances of the petitioners that respondents have not only re-fixed their salary but have also directed recovery. 3. The OA was considered by the Tribunal on 19th May, 2025, when the Tribunal, after putting the respondents on notice, MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.06.25 stayed the recovery of the alleged excess salary received by the applicants/petitioners, but declined to stay the re-fixation of pay of the petitioners. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that they had claimed two reliefs and had made out a case for stay, but the Tribunal has only granted one relief and declined the other. 4. We have gone through the contents of the OA filed before the Tribunal as also the order impugned. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has passed a perfectly good order in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The validity of the circulars, as also the entitlement of the petitioners to fixation of salary in terms of SRO 59 of 1990, is subject matter of adjudication in the main OA, and no view with regard to the validity can be taken in ex-parte. Needless to say that the direction given to the respondents to go ahead with re-fixation of pay of the petitioners as per Rules shall be subject to the final outcome of the OA. 5. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE Srinagar, 30.05.2025 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.06.25