Jammu and Kashmir High Court

WP(C)/2888/2026 of UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVT AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPTT AND ANOTHER Vs BHUSHAN LAL MUNSHI on 14 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2888/2026 CM No. 6349/2026 UT of J&K & Anr. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA vs Bushan Lal Munshi .…Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 2888/2026

CM No. 6349/2026

UT of J&K & Anr.

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA

vs

Bushan Lal Munshi

.…Respondent(s)

Through:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

(14.09.2026)

This Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India against an order/judgment dated 03.02.2026, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (Jammu Bench) [“the Tribunal”] in Transfer Application No.1682/2020 titled “Bushan Lal Munshi vs. State of J&K & Ors.”, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the petition has directed the petitioners herein to issue corrigendum to Government Order No. 279-Agri of 2008 dated 07.10.2008, correcting the erroneous entry showing the respondent as “dead” and instead indicate his correct status as “alive”. A further direction has been issued by the Tribunal to grant notional promotion to the respondent to the post of Chief Agriculture Officer/Deputy Director Agriculture with effect from 01.07.2001, on the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted with the consequential refixation of pensionary benefits. The tribunal has also imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners for compelling the respondent to initiate litigation. The impugned judgment is challenged by petitioners primarily on the ground that the mistake that occurred in the Government Order (supra) was inadvertent and due to oversight and the same was later corrected. It is argued by Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA that since, the mistake, which ultimately resulted in depriving the respondent of the benefit of promotion was Serial No. 15

bona fide and due to inadvertence, as such, the Tribunal ought not to have imposed exemplary costs. Having heard Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion the judgment passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in exercise of the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Indisputably, due to an oversight of the petitioners while issuing the Government Order No.279-Agri Of 2008 (supra), a serious mistake as regard to the status of the respondent was committed. The respondent was alive and was shown to be „dead‟ and, accordingly, he was not considered alongwith his juniors for next promotion of Chief Agricultural Officer\Deputy Director Agriculture to which he was entitled to w.e.f 01.07.2001. The respondent retired as a District Agriculture Officer and was, accordingly, paid post retiral benefits as per the post held by him and the emoluments received inconnection therewith. The respondent was, thus, forced to enter into litigation to vindicate his right. The applicant succeeded before the Tribunal, but the petitioners, instead of implementing the judgment, decided to file the instant writ petition. Having regard to the conduct exhibited by the petitioners post-admission of the error, we are of the considered opinion that the cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed by the Tribunal is quite appropriate and does not call for any interference by this Court. This appeal is found to be devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed.

(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SANJEEV KUMAR)

JUDGE JUDGE

Jammu 14.09.2026 Sapna

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead