Central Administrative Tribunal
Irshad Ahmad Khan vs AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT on 21 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 1
O.A./1155/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ PROMOTION ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment:
Order Dated: 21/10/2026
IRSHAD AHMAD KHAN
Vs
AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. BILAL A MALLA
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. SYED MUSAIB, DAG
Order of The Tribunal
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.
1. The applicant’s father was killed by militants. Thereafter, in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, notified vide SRO-43 of 1994 dated 22.02.1994, the applicant was appointed by respondent No. 4 against an available post of Bee-Keeper vide Order No. 31-Adm/DCK/SRO 43 of 2003 dated 18.01.2003, wherein his name figured at Serial No. 108.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 478/2023, which was disposed of on 12.06.2023 with a direction to the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation of the applicant and consider his claim for promotion to the next higher posts by passing a speaking order in accordance with the Rules of 2017 within a period of six weeks.
3. As the respondents failed to comply with the aforesaid directions, the applicant instituted Contempt Petition No. 284/2025. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the respondents filed a compliance report, stating that the applicant’s claim had been rejected vide Order No. Agri/Ls(Sgr-246)Ng/2025-26/738-39 dated 23.11.2025. The said order was recently communicated to the applicant, who is aggrieved thereby on the ground that the respondents have rejected his claim on untenable grounds, allegedly disregarding the relevant records and his original appointment order.
4. It is further submitted that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, had directed the respondents to give effect to the original appointment order and release the consequential benefits in favour of the applicant. The applicant contends that, despite his original appointment in the respondent department against the post of Bee-Keeper under SRO-43 of 1994, he has been made to work against the post of Junior Mali. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the applicable rules and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply/objections.
8. Accordingly, four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy thereof to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicant.
9. List on 28.12.2026.
Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )