HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 180/2026 Date of pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Date of uploading 1. UT of J & K Acting through Commissioner Secretary to the Govt. Agriculture Production, Civil Secretariat Jammu. 2. Director Animal Husbandry Department, Jammu .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA v/s Mohit Singh Langeh S/o Lt. Babishan Singh R/o Chackshama A/p Barnai, Tehsil Jammu North, Jammu .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 1. Impugned in this petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and its functionary, is an order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 61/723/2025, titled “Mohit Singh Langeh Vs. Union Territory of J&K and another”, whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the OA at the admission stage, without entering into the merits of the case by providing that the petitioners herein shall release the unpaid salary/arrears of salary in favour of the respondent, provided he was continuously working on the post to which he was appointed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the direction issued by the Tribunal. If the respondent has worked on the post to Sr. No. 57 2 which he was appointed by the petitioners, he becomes entitled to the salary for the period he has worked. 3. It is contended by Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA that the appointment of the respondent was subject to verification of his qualification of matriculation, which qualification, upon verification, was found not genuine. If that be the situation, nothing prevents the petitioners to initiate appropriate action in this regard. Suffice it to say that the respondent has worked on the post to which he was appointed by the petitioners, he would definitely be entitled to salary. This is what has been held by the Tribunal. 4. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 03.02.2026 Shafqat Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No