Tariq Hussain Pandith vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary Jal Shakti Dept on 27 October 2026

1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Govt. (Jal Shakti) I&FC Department Govt. of J&K Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu - Pin Code 190001

2. Chief Engineer I&FC Department Srinagar - PIN CODE 190001

3. District Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Kupwara HQ Handwara - PIN CODE 193221

4. Executive Engineer I&FC Division Handwara District Kupwara - PIN CODE 193221

5. Executive Engineer Irrigation Construction Division Pampore PIN CODE 192121. .... RESPONDENTS By Advocate :- Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, DAG

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

O R D E R (ORAL) JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. The matter was listed today for filing of the reply. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reply to the present Original Application has not been filed and seeks further time to do so.

02. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with appropriate directions to the respondents to consider the applicant’s claims regarding restoration of pay, refund of the amount recovered, and grant of third in- situ promotion under SRO-14 of 1996, particularly in the light of the judgments relied upon by him, including Sita Ram & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, decided on 04.04.2025, Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and 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.

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

936/2025, decided on 06.03.2026, together with the relevant service records and documents annexed to the Original Application, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law and within a stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant’s representation dated 21.10.2026 may also be considered while examining the aforesaid claims.

03. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents submits that the respondents also rely upon the aforesaid judgments, 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 claims raised by the applicant may be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules governing the field. They further submit that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

04. The case of the applicant, as set out in the Original Application, is that he was initially appointed as a Gauge Reader against an available post vide Order No. 209- PA(K)W dated 15.12.1984 and was adjusted against the post of Gauge Reader in the Floods P&D Division, Srinagar, vide Order No. 1755-61 dated 21.12.1984. He submits that he was subsequently placed in revised pay scales from time to time and was declared quasi- permanent vide Order No. 38-E of 1991-92 dated 20.02.1992.

05. The applicant further submits that he was granted the first in-situ promotion under SRO-14 of 1996 vide Chief Engineer’s Office Order No. 65-12 dated 14.11.1996 with effect from 01.01.1995, and thereafter the second in-situ promotion vide Chief Engineer’s Order No. 128-E dated 09.11.2004 with effect from 01.01.2003 in the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000. According to the applicant, having completed the requisite period of regular service, he became entitled to the third in-situ promotion with effect

Location:

Devendra Tripathi from 01.01.2012 upon completion of 27 years of service, but the said benefit has not been extended to him.

06. It is also the case of the applicant that the post of Gauge Reader was included among the categories of posts covered by the relevant pay-upgradation provisions under SRO-393 of 1997 and SRO-59 of 1990. In support of his claim, he has referred to official communications dated 07.05.2007 and 23.03.2009 concerning the grant of benefits under the aforesaid SROs to other Gauge Readers, including employees stated to be junior to him. The applicant contends that, despite his longer service, he has been subjected to discriminatory treatment.

07. The applicant further contends that, shortly before his scheduled retirement on 31.12.2026, the respondents reduced his pay from Pay Level-6 to Pay Level-5 and his basic pay from ₹72,100 to ₹61,000 with effect from June 2026, besides effecting recovery from his salary. He submits that the aforesaid action was taken without affording him an opportunity of being heard and that his

Location:

Devendra Tripathi claim for third in-situ promotion under SRO-14 of 1996 has not been considered. He has accordingly challenged Letter No. CE/Acctt./2026-2027/3293-3332 dated 16.06.2026 and Letter No. PICD/1085-86 dated 07.07.2026, insofar as they relate to his pay fixation, and seeks restoration of his pay, refund of the amount recovered and grant of the third in-situ promotion with consequential benefits.

08. The applicant has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh concerning pay fixation, recovery of alleged excess payments and the grant of financial upgradation to employees who have remained stagnated in service. He has further referred to the judgment in Jamsheed Ahmad Khan v. Commissioner Secretary to Government & Others in support of his claim for restoration of pay and consequential service benefits.

09. The applicant had submitted a representation before the respondents, which was received and endorsed under No.

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

P773 on 18.07.2026. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the representation dated 21.10.2026 and submits that the grievances raised therein, along with those raised in the Original Application, may be considered by the competent authority in the light of the applicable rules and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the parties.

10. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the issues raised by the applicant require examination by the competent authority in the light of the relevant service record, the applicable rules and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the parties. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the matter can appropriately be disposed of by issuing directions for consideration of the applicant’s claims in accordance with law, without expressing any opinion on their merits.

11. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed

Location:

Devendra Tripathi of with the following directions:

(i) The respondents shall scrutinize the individual case of the applicant on the basis of his relevant service record and the applicable rules to determine whether the benefit of SRO-59 of 1990 was rightly or wrongly extended to him. Before passing any order adverse to the applicant, the respondents shall issue notice to him, furnish the material proposed to be relied upon and afford him a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation and supporting documents. The exercise shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Sita Ram (supra).

(ii) If, upon such scrutiny, the respondents find that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was rightly granted to the applicant, no re-fixation of his pay or pension or recovery on that account shall be effected, and his entitlement shall be regulated accordingly, subject to the applicable rules and law.

(iii) If the respondents find that the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 was wrongly granted, they shall be at liberty to regulate and re-fix the applicant’s pay or pension prospectively in accordance with the applicable rules and the law laid down in Sita Ram (supra), Deshbir Singh v. Union Territory of J&K (supra), and Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Maqbool Sheikh & Others (supra).

(iv) The respondents shall separately examine the applicant’s claim for grant of the third in-situ promotion under SRO-14 of 1996 with effect from 01.01.2012, including his claim for

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

placement in the corresponding higher pay level and consequential benefits. Such consideration shall be undertaken on the basis of his service record, the applicable rules and the judgments relied upon by him. The respondents shall specifically consider his contention that the claim for third in-situ promotion is distinct from the question concerning the grant of benefits under SRO-59 of 1990.

(v) The respondents shall also examine the applicant’s grievance regarding reduction of his basic pay from ₹72,100 to ₹61,000 with effect from June 2026 and the recovery, if any, made from his salary. The legality of the impugned action and the applicant’s entitlement shall be examined in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles governing recovery of alleged excess payments. If any amount has already been recovered from the applicant on account of benefits extended under SRO-59 of 1990, the question of refund shall be considered in accordance with the applicable law, including the principles laid down in Sita Ram (supra) and State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (supra), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the applicant’s case.

(vi) The respondents shall consider the applicant’s representation dated 21.10.2026, along with the grievances raised in the Original Application, in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules. The decision taken on the aforesaid issues shall be communicated to the applicant by way of a detailed, reasoned and speaking order, clearly indicating the basis for determining his entitlement or otherwise to the benefits claimed.

Location:

Devendra Tripathi

(vii) The applicant shall be associated with the aforesaid exercise undertaken by the respondents, and a copy of the reasoned and speaking order passed pursuant thereto shall be provided to him within one week from the date of passing of such order.

(viii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of five (05) weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents.

12. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims and all the questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.

13. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

14. No order as to costs.

15. Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

27.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location:

Devendra Tripathi