LPA No. 142/2019 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 11.02.2025 Pronounced on: 13.02.2025 LPA No. 142/2019 CM No. 4332/2019 Commissioner Secretary to Government General Administration Department, J&K Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. …Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA with Mr. Mohd. Younus Hafiz, Assisting Counsel. Vs. 1. Satwant Singh (aged: 60 years) S/O S. Sarwan Singh R/O Upper Shiv Nagar, Jammu At present Srinagar. 2. Abdul Majid (Aged: 62 years) S/o Kh. Ghulam Qadir R/o Nawab Bazar, Srinagar. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE. JUDGMENT Sanjeev Kumar; J 01. This appeal by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, is filed under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, directed against an order and judgment dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court [“the Writ Court’] in SWP No. 2312/2014 titled “Satwant Singh & Anr vs State of J&K and Others”. 02. Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of this appeal as are gatherable from the impugned judgment are that, the respondents (Writ LPA No. 142/2019 Petitioners before the Writ Court), were appointed as Junior Scale Stenographers in the field cadre and were transferred to the Civil Secretariat by different orders passed by the Government. While the respondents were serving in the Civil Secretariat, they filed their representations to the appellant to encadre them in the Civil Secretariat. However, these representations were not disposed of by the appellant. 03. Constrained, the respondents filed SWP No. 925/1998, seeking a direction to the appellant to encadre the respondents in the civil secretariat service. Vide order dated 22nd April, 2011, the said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the appellant to encadre the respondents in the Civil Secretariat. The direction was issued by the Writ Court to encadre the respondents in the Civil Secretariat primarily on the ground that some similarly situated persons who had been transferred from the field to the Secretariat after the respondents, had been adjusted and encadred in the Civil Secretariat. 04. The judgment of the Writ Court dated 22nd April, 2011 was challenged by the appellant in LPA No. 213/2011, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11th September, 2012. 05. After the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant complied with the judgment of the Writ Court and vide order dated 3rd April, 2014, the appellant encadred the respondents in the Civil Secretariat service. Though the respondents were encadred in the Civil Secretariat from the date of their transfer from the field to Civil Secretariat, yet they were only given notional fixation of pay and the monetary benefits were given only for the purposes of pension. 06. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents challenged the order dated 3rd April, 2014, in SWP No. 2312/2014, which has been disposed by the learned Writ Court vide judgment impugned in this appeal. 07. The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellant on the ground that the respondents though encadred retrospectively from the date of transfer, had not actually worked in the transferee cadre i.e. secretariat cadre and, therefore, the principle of ‘“No Work No Wages” was applicable. The judgment is also challenged on the ground that the LPA No. 142/2019 analogy of the similarly situated persons drawn by the learned Writ Court was not permissible, in that, the respondents herein and the persons already encadred, stood on different footing and were not similarly situated. 08. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court is legally perfect and in full consonance with law. 09. Indisputably, the respondents who were working as Junior Scale Stenographers in various Government departments other than the secretariat, came to be transferred to the Civil Secretariat in the interest of administration. They had been working in the secretariat for long and despite their repeated requests, they were not encadred in the Secretariat service. The Junior Scale Stenographers in the secretariat service were in the higher pay grade than what was prescribed for the respondents, working in the field cadre. The appellant had previously adjusted some Junior Scale Stenographers from the field cadre into the secretariat cadre and gave them all monetary benefits. On the analogy of these persons, the respondents also made a representation. The representation was accepted and vide order No. 16-GAD of 1998 dated 21.01.1998, the respondents were encadred in J&K Secretariat Subordinate Service prospectively. However, the grievance of the respondents still remained, in that, they were demanding their appointment in the J&K Civil Secretariat Cadre retrospectively with effect from the date they were transferred from the field and posted in the Civil Secretariat. 10. With a view to get their grievance redressed, the respondents filed SWP No. 925/1998 and claimed retrospective encaderment in the secretariat service on the analogy of Hashmat Ali and Farooq Ahmad Mir. The writ petition as noted above, was allowed by the learned Writ Court vide order dated 22nd April, 2011, with a direction to the appellant to encadre the respondents with effect from the date they were transferred and posted in the civil secretariat. The judgment of the learned Writ Court attained finality with the dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 213/2011). Ultimately, vide Government Order No. 384-GAD of 2014 LPA No. 142/2019 dated 3rd April, 2014, the judgment of the learned Writ Court was implemented and the respondents were encadered with effect from the date they were transferred and posted in the civil secretariat, but without any monetary benefits. The claim of the respondents for monetary benefits right from the date of their encadrement in the secretariat service, was opposed by the appellant before the learned Writ Court on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. The Writ Court, however, did not agree with the appellant and came to the conclusion that principle of “No Work No Pay” would apply only in a case where an employee refuses to work on higher post, when offered. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the matter and find that the view taken by the learned Writ Court is unexceptionable. That apart, in the instant case, the respondents who were working as Junior Scale Stenographers in the filed cadre in the lower pay scale, were transferred and posted in the Secretariat and had been continuously performing their duties in the Secretariat as Junior Scale Stenographers, which carries higher pay scale in the Civil Secretariat service. The respondents thus, have performed the same job and duties as Junior Scale Stenographers as was being performed by those encadred in the Civil Secretariat and this, the respondents had been doing right from the date they were transferred and posted in the Secretariat. It does not, therefore, lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that the respondents having not worked against the post of Junior Scale Stenographers/ Senior Scale Stenographers in the higher pay grade, are not entitled to any monetary benefits. Once the appellant accepted the judgment of the learned Writ Court and encadred the respondents in the J&K Civil Secretariat Subordinate Service retrospectively with effect from the date of their transfer, there was no reason or occasion for the appellant to deny the monetary benefits, which were available to the respondents on such retrospective encadrement. Right from their transfer, the respondents have performed the duties in the Secretariat, which are akin to and in no manner inferior to those performed by the Junior Scale Stenographers/ Senior Scale Stenographers borne on the J&K Civil Secretariat Subordinate Service. The learned Writ Court has discussed the case law LPA No. 142/2019 elaborately with regard to the principle of “No Work No Pay” and we do not want to repeat the same in this judgment. 12. Law is well settled that the issue of entitlement of back wages depends on the facts of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down for the purpose. The principles of justice, equity and good conscience regulate the discretion in the matter to be exercised by the appropriate authority, Court or the Tribunal. In the instant case, the principle of “No Work No Pay” is not attracted at all, for the reason, that the respondents, right from the date of their posting in the Civil Secretariat, had been performing their duties as Junior Scale Stenographers and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale prescribed for the Junior Scale Stenographers borne on the J&K Civil Secretariat Subordinate Service. 13. Viewed from any angle, the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court suffers from no legal infirmity and the same is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed along with connected CM(s). (PUNEET GUPTA) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 13.02.2025 “Hamid” ❖ Whether the Judgement is Reportable? Yes/No ❖ Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes/No Abdul Hamid Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.02.2025