Gh hassan malik vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT on 21 October 2026

1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the present M.A. No. 1246/2026 in C.P. No. 362/2025, seeking appropriate directions for release/refund of the amount recovered or withheld from the applicant pursuant to the pay fixation/upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990. It is submitted that the applicant had filed O.A. No. 816/2024 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.04.2025. The said judgment was not challenged by the respondents; however, the same has not been implemented, constraining the applicant to initiate the present Contempt Petition. It is further submitted that notice has already been issued to the respondents/contemnors, but no statement of facts has been filed till date.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that similarly situated employees of the same department were granted relief by this Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 818/2024, 882/2024, 928/2024, 934/2024 and 938/2024. The judgments passed in the said matters were challenged by the authorities before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in WP(C) Nos. 3271/2025, 3273/2025, 3274/2025, 3276/2025 and 3277/2025, which were disposed of vide orders dated 27.12.2025, with the consent of the parties, in the light of the judgments passed in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. Deshbir Singh, LPA No. 119/2022, CM No. 6546/2022, decided on 22.09.2023, and Sita Ram & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., WP(C) No. 2416/2024, decided on 04.04.2025. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court directed the release of the recovered amounts in favour of the concerned employees within the stipulated period. Copies of the aforesaid judgments have been annexed with the application.

3. It is further submitted that the aforesaid judgments have been implemented and acted upon and that, in view thereof, the applicant is also entitled to the release/refund of the amount recovered from him. It is clarified that, although the applicant is already receiving pension without the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 and does not press his claim for the benefit of SRO 59 of 1990 in the present proceedings.

4. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant confine his claim to the extent of release/refund of the amount recovered pursuant to the pay fixation/upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990, in the light of the judgments passed in Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026.

5. The statement made by learned counsel for the applicant at the Bar is taken on record.

6. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/contemnors, submits that the respondents also rely upon the judgments rendered in Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025; Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K & Others, WP(C) No. 1730/2020 (O&M) c/w CCP(S) No. 32/2021, decided on 02.06.2022; and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, particularly with regard to the competence of the department to correct an erroneous pay fixation and the consequential action permissible under the applicable rules. He submits that the applicant’s claim may be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules. He further submits that the present M.A. may be disposed of and the Contempt Petition closed with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. His statement made is taken on record.

7. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present M.A. and the Contempt Petition pending, particularly in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the proposed course for consideration of the applicant’s claim in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgments relied upon.

8. Accordingly, the present M.A. No. 1246/2026 is disposed of, and Contempt Petition No. 362/2025 is closed with a direction to the respondents/contemnors to consider the applicant’s claim for release/refund of the amount recovered from him pursuant to the pay fixation/upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990, in the light of the judgments passed in Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others, WP(C) No. 936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, if the applicant is found to be similarly situated and squarely covered by the principles laid down therein. The claim shall be considered strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law, subject to the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment thereto, and an appropriate decision shall be taken accordingly.

9. With the aforesaid directions, M.A. No. 1246/2026 stands disposed of and Contempt Petition No. 362/2025 stands closed. The contemnors are accordingly discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

10. No order as to costs.

11. Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance. Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )