HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 527/2026 Pronounced on : 03.03.2026 Uploaded on : 05.03.2026 1. UT of J & K through Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. Jal Shakti Department, Civil Secretariat at present at Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Chief Engineer, Jal Shakti (PHE) Department, J & K, Jammu. 3. Superintending Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu. 4. Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering Mech. Division), Udhampur. .....Petitioner(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG v/s 1. Ravi Kumar, S/o Sh. Dev Raj, R/o Village Mangal Pamote, Tehsil Reasi, District Reasi. 2. Des Raj, S/o Laxman Dass, R/o Village Serli near Helipad, Check Post, Tehsil Reasi, District Reasi. 3. Balbinder Singh, S/o Sh. Kartar Chand, R/o Gajansoo, Tehsil & District Jammu. .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 0 3 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 6 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the UT of J & K and three others, is an order and judgment dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in Transfer Application No. 638 of 2022 titled “Ravi Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the TA by providing that in case the respondents are squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Tribunal in TA No. 1535 of 2020 titled “Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of J & K & Ors.”, the TA Sr. No. 31 WP (C) No. 527/2026 2 filed by the respondents shall be deemed to have been disposed of/decided in terms of the said judgment. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference for the reason that the same does not determine any of the rights of the parties. The Tribunal has also not given any finding as to whether the case of the respondents is covered by the judgment of Gurmeet Singh (supra) or not and this has been left to the petitioners to determine. 3. The mandate of the judgment impugned is that the petitioners are obliged to consider the case of the respondents and it is only if they find that the case of respondents is covered by the judgment of Gurmeet Singh, then they would be given the same benefit as may have been granted to Gurmeet Singh. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 03.03.2026 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No