Serial No. 45 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Cm(2731/2026) In WP(C) 1044/2026 Shaheen Iqbal Qadir …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 12.05.2026 01. Impugned in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order dated 30th April, 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in MA No. 483/2026 in OA No. 260/2026 in case titled “Shaheen Iqbal Qadir Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal has vacated the interim order dated 02.04.2026. 02. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant petition is that, in view of the debatable questions of fact and law involved in the OA, the Tribunal ought to have protected both the petitioner as well as the lis pending adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the first date of hearing i.e., 02.04.2026, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the respondents not to act upon the Order No. 30-NG of 2026 dated 30th March, 2026 and, therefore, such order ought to have been maintained to preserve the lis. 03. It seems that an application was moved before the Tribunal by the respondents seeking vacation of the interim order MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.05.26 dated 02.04.2026 contending therein that the order dated 30.03.2026 which was subject matter of challenge in the OA stood already implemented, not only the petitioner stood relieved but in his place one Mohd Ashraf Wani had joined as Head Assistant. Taking note of the aforesaid stand of the respondents, the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.04.2026 vacated the interim directions earlier granted. 04. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has raised debatable questions of fact and law which require adjudication by the Tribunal after hearing both the sides, it is necessary that the status of the petitioner, as it existed on 02.04.2026 is maintained. This would ensure that the interim order dated 02.04.2026 is respected and no preemptive action of non-suiting the petitioner is taken by the respondents. 05. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of this petition by providing that till the OA is considered and disposed of by the Tribunal, the status of the petitioner as it existed on 02.04.2026 shall be maintained. 06. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.05.2026 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.05.26