20 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 378/2024 Union Territory of J&K&Ors ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA V/s Abdul Wahid Sofi ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T A Lone, Adv . Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 30.07.2025 1. Through the medium of present petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 01.03.2023 as also order dated 15.04.2024passed by the learned Civil Judge Sr. Division (Sub Judge) Anantnag. 2. It appears that the respondent had filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction against the petitioners/defendants before the learned trial court with following reliefs: P a g e | 2 CM(M) No. 378/2024 i) That a decree for declaration be passed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits provided by the State of Jammu and Kashmir to its employees in terms of SRO 59 of 06/2/1990 read with SRO 93 of 15/4/2009 and SRO 222 of 2012 dated 110/7/2012 ii) That a decree of mandatory injunction be passed directing the defendants to provide the benefits accrued to the plaintiff in terms of SRO’s supra. Further the pensionary benefits be reassessed and granted to the plaintiff. 3. In the plaint, it was claimed by the respondent, that he was working in Power Development Department as Technician- III and that he had superannuated on 31.08.2012. The learned trial court, it appears, on the basis of consent given by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants, disposed of the suit with a direction to petitioners/defendants to consider the claim of the respondent/plaintiff for release of service benefits in terms of SRO 59 of 1990 dated 06.02.1990 read with SRO 93 of 2009 dated 15.04.2009 and SRO 222 of 2012 dated 10.07.2012 on the analogy of P a g e | 3 CM(M) No. 378/2024 similarly situated and circumstanced employee Shri Abdul Gani Wani who had retired on 31.08.2012 4. It appears that in order to get the aforesaid order of the learned trial court executed, the respondents filed execution petition before the trial court. On 15.04.2024, the learned trial court, passed another order which is impugned in this petition whereby the officers of the petitioners herein were directed to be put in civil prison for having defaulted in execution of the order dated 01.03.2023 and the respondent/decree holder was directed to deposit the diet expenses. The arrest warrants were also issued against the judgment debtors No. 3 and 4 for their lodgment in the civil prison. Besides this,an observation was made by the learned trial court that there is some discrepancy in the original service book and photo copy of the service book of the respondent/ decree holder and accordingly, he was given liberty to approach the police for registration of FIR. 5. The petitioners, have challenged the aforesaid two orders viz, order dated 01.03.2023 as also order dated 15.04.2024, through the medium of present petition on the ground that P a g e | 4 CM(M) No. 378/2024 both these orders are not in consonance with the law inasmuch as the same run contrary to the settled position of law. It has been further contended that pursuant to order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned trial court, the claim of the respondent was considered and the same was found to be without any merit and in this regard, consideration order dated 31.10.2023 came to be issued by the petitioners/defendants. Thus, according to the petitioners/defendants, there was no occasion for the learned trial court, to pass the impugned order dated 15.04.2024, when the order of trial court passed on 01.03.2023, had already been complied with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the record of the case. 7. The dispute raised by the respondent in his suit filed before the learned trial court was with regard to his entitlement to benefits flowing from SRO 59 of 1990 dated 06/2/1990 read with SRO 93 of 2012 dated 15/4/2009 and SRO 222 of 2012 dated 10/7/2012. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff prior to his superannuation, was holding a civil post in a Department P a g e | 5 CM(M) No. 378/2024 of Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the dispute raised by the respondent in the suit qualifies to be a “Service Matter” as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The suit has been filed before the learned trial court in the year 2021. At the relevant time, provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, had come into operation in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and a Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, had also been established in the Union Territory. 8. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act operated as a complete bar to the jurisdiction of a civil court and all other courts except the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes cognizable by an Administrative Tribunal.Therefore, the learned trial court did not have jurisdiction to even entertain the suit filed by the respondent. The impugned order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned trail court is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 9. So far as the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 is concerned, the same being an offshoot of the order dated 01.03.2023, is also without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, once the P a g e | 6 CM(M) No. 378/2024 petitioners/defendants had, pursuant to order dated 01.03.2023 passed consideration order dated 31.10.2023, the order of civil court stood complied with and there was no occasion for the executing court to proceed ahead in the execution petition. In case, the respondent/plaintiff had any grievance against the consideration order, it was open to him to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings. There being no positive direction issued by the learned trial court directing the petitioners/defendants to release the benefits flowing from the aforesaid three SROs in favour of the respondent, the direction being only to consider his claim, once the consideration was accorded by the petitioners/judgment debtors, it would not amount to violation of the order of the civil court. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that if at all the petitioners had any grievances against the order passed by the trial court on 01.03.2023, the proper course for them was to file application under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of P a g e | 7 CM(M) No. 378/2024 Civil Procedure against the said order and not to file petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. In the above context, it is to be noted that ordinarily, this Court does not interfere in an order passed by an inferior court if such orderis appealable or revisable in nature. However, in the instant case, aglaring misuse of legal process has been brought to the notice of this Court because the trial court has, without having jurisdiction to a suit including adjudication of a entertain service matter, in derogation of the provisions contained under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, proceeded to entertain the suit filed by the respondent and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff, which is impermissible in law 12. Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure clearly provides that a civil court cannot take cognizance of suit which is either expressly or impliedly barred. Since Section 28of the Administrative Tribunal Act operates as a complete bar to maintainability of a suit before a civil court or any other court except the Supreme court, in respect of “Service Matters”, therefore, it was not open to the learned trial court to even P a g e | 8 CM(M) No. 378/2024 entertain the suit filed by the respondent. The whole proceedings before the learned trial court being without jurisdiction are a nullity and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court constitute a gross illegality that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. This Court would be failing in itsduty, if it does not exercise its extraordinary power of supervision under Article 227 of the Constitution to set right the gross illegality committed by the learned trial court. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 as also order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The execution proceedings pending before the learned trial court are also quashed. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate Forum. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.07.2025 Aasif Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No