Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2752/2026 of UT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS Vs MOHD ARIF on 2 September 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2752/2026 UT of J&K and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG V/s Mohd Arif …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2752/2026
UT of J&K and others
…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:-
Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
V/s
Mohd Arif
…..Respondent(s)
Through:-
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
02.09.2026
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu, in OA No. 61/48/25 titled “Mohd Arif vs. UT of J&K and others”. The respondent/applicant had approached the Tribunal for quashing of the Order No. CEJ/PMGSY/250 dated 30.12.2024 by virtue of which he was put under suspension, and also sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him on the post as held by him prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2024.
2. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the OA by directing as under:- “Accordingly, the original application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat this OA as representation of the applicant and consider the case of the applicant for suspension review which was on the basis of wrong facts in FIR and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant by passing reasoned and speaking order”. S. No. 110
WP(C) No. 2752/2026
3. The aforesaid directions were required to be complied with within a period of four weeks. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners-UT have filed the present writ petition
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the directions passed by the Tribunal have already been complied with and they have passed a detailed speaking order bearing Order No. CEJ/PMGSY/67 dated 26.03.2025.
5. In view of the fact that the order passed the Tribunal already stands complied with, nothing survives for consideration in the present petition. The writ petition has, therefore, been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.
(Shahzad Azeem)
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Judge
Jammu: 02.09.2026 Shafqat