Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2736/2025 of UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (JAL SHAKTI / PHE) Vs GHULAM AHMAD MALLA AND ORS. on 29 August 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE) Case: WP(C) No. 2736/2025 U.T. of J&K & Ors. ..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s) Through :- Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA v/s Ghulam Ahmad Malla & Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate vice Mr.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Case: WP(C) No. 2736/2025
U.T. of J&K & Ors.
..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s)
Through :- Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA
v/s
Ghulam Ahmad Malla & Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Through :-
Ms. Nighat Amin, Advocate vice
Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, 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
29.08.2026
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by U.T. of J&K & others to assail an order and judgment dated 12.02.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, Srinagar [for short ‘The Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 117 of 2024 titled ‘Gulam Ahmad Malla Vs. U.T. of J&K and others’ whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners herein not to recover any excess amount paid to the respondent during the service period. The Tribunal has further directed the petitioners to pay all the retiral benefits without deducting the benefit extended to him under SRO 59 of 1990.
2. The impugned judgment has been assailed on multiple grounds; however, Mr. J A Dar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners has restricted the challenge to the impugned judgment to the extent it directs the petitioners to pay all the retiral benefits without deducting the benefit extended to him under SRO 59 of 1990.
Sr. No. 25
3. Ms. Nighat Amin, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the issue raised in this petition is covered by a judgment dated 04.04.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 224 of 2024, titled Sita Ram Vs. U.T. of J&K and others, by the Division Bench of this Court.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the petitioners in this petition is no longer res integra and is fully covered by the judgment of Sita Ram (supra).
5. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is partially allowed and the judgment impugned is set aside insofar as it directs the petitioners to pay all the retiral benefits without deducting the benefit extended to him under SRO 59 of 1990. The judgment of the Tribunal insofar as it directs the petitioners not to make recoveries of the excess amount erroneously paid to the respondent during his service period is upheld. Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (A) JAMMU 29.08.2026 Suraj K. Singh