WP(C) No.1896/2025 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 11.08.2025 Pronounced on:14.08.2025 CJ Court WP(C) No.1896/2025 1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Public Works (R&B) Department, Civil Secretariate, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. 3. Chief Engineer, MED, Srinagar. ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG. Vs. 1. Hilal Ahmad Wani s/o Gh. Mohd. Wani R/o Qazipora District Bandipora. 2. Gh. Nabi Dar S/o Abdul Khaliq Dar R/o Noorpora Tral District Pulwama. 3. Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat S/o Ghulam Hassan Bhat R/o Noorpora Tral District Pulwama. 4. Tariq Rasool Bhat s/o Ghulam Rasool Bhat R/o Aragam District Bandipora. 5. Zaffar Rasool Bhat S/o Ghulam Rasool Bhat R/o Aragam District Baramulla. ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. N. A. Tabassum, Advocate, with Mr. M. Idrees, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT OSWAL ‘J’ 1) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. WP(C) No.1896/2025 2 | P a g e 2) The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No.1338/2021 titled “Hilal Ahmad Wani and others vs. UT of J&K and others” whereby order dated 28.06.2021 in respect of rejection of claim of the respondents for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.5150-8300, was quashed and further the petitioners herein have been directed to grant benefits to the respondents herein by fixing their pay in the scale of Rs.5150-8300 from the date of their appointment against the post of Draftsman. 3) The order (supra) of the Tribunal has been impugned by the petitioners on the grounds that speaking order dated 28.06.2021 was passed by them after examining the case of the respondents in its entirety and the case of the respondents was completely distinct and different from that of the petitioners in Sham Paul Randhawa’s case and, as such, could not have been considered on the same footing. It is further urged that the respondents were appointed in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 (pre-revised) and once they accepted the appointment fully knowing the conditions of service and Recruitment Rules, they are not entitled to the higher pay scale. WP(C) No.1896/2025 3 | P a g e 4) The order impugned depicts that TA No.1350/2021 was also disposed of along with OA Nos.851/2021 and 1338/2021 in terms of the same order. The petitioners had assailed the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 by filing WP(C) No.625/2024 titled UT of J&K and others vs. Mohammad Maqbool and ors. arising out of TA No.1350/2021 but without any success as the said writ petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.07.2025. The Coordinate Bench, while dismissing the aforesaid petition preferred by the petitioners, observed as under: “We have gone through the entire judgment passed by the Tribunal and we are of the view that the Tribunal has only following the judgment passed by this Court in favour of similarly situated Draftsmen and has rightly concluded that the respondents cannot be discriminated in the matter of giving the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300, for the reasons that they are similarly situated with hundreds of other Draftsmen who are already enjoying the pay scale of Rs.5150-8300. The judgment passed by this court in case titled “State of J&K and Ors. vs. Sheikh Rashid Ahmad and Ors.” LPASW No.84/2016 decided on 14.02.2019 and, therefore, does not suffer any legal infirmity.” 5) Another Coordinate Bench (incidentally in which one of us ‘Oswal, J’ was a member) has also considered the same controversy in WP(C) No.2828/2023 and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioners on the same grounds, which weighed with the Coordinate Bench while dismissing WP(C) No.625/2024. WP(C) No.1896/2025 4 | P a g e 6) Apart from the above, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the case of the respondents was distinct qua the case of petitioners in Sham Paul Randhawa’s case, which formed the basis of decision in other writ petitions. 7) In view of the above, we do not find any reason to show indulgence. The writ petition is found to be misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 14.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No