GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR vs HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 28 October 2026

O R D E R

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral 01/ Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought the following relief : “The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider his representations and preserve the

TARIQ A MOTA

relevant original records and refrain from treating any disputed service entry as finally settled without examination of the applicant's claim. The petitioner has further sought a direction, as an interim measure, that in view of the facts and grounds of the case, the court may be pleased to call for the records relating to Government Order No. 181-HUD of 2007 dated 01.06.2007, Government Order No. 196-HUD of 2018 dated 07.07.2018, the subsequent posting and service orders, and the departmental consideration of the allegations concerning his engineering degree certificate and the respondents be further directed to determine, in accordance with the applicable service rules and the operative terms of the reinstatement order, the treatment of the period from 01.06.2007 until his reinstatement, including whether the period is to be treated as duty, qualifying service or otherwise for the purposes permitted by law and direct the respondents to determine his entitlement to salary arrears and other admissible monetary benefits for the aforesaid period, after considering the criminal court judgment, the subsequent departmental findings, the reinstatement order and all relevant service rules.”. 02/ What can be gathered from a cursory look into the pleadings made in this petition is that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, who was appointed in the year 1991 and subsequently promoted to higher engineering posts in the service of the respondents. It is submitted that during his active service, some allegations were raised regarding the genuineness of his engineering degree certificate, and accordingly, departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in issuance of Government Order No. 181-HUD of 2007 dated 01.06.2007, in terms whereof, the petitioner was removed from service. 03/ Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner challenged the adverse action aforesaid and pursued the proceedings arising from the allegations. To this effect he referred to the judgment of the competent criminal court dated 11.12.2013 and subsequent departmental examination of the matter. It is further submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties in the service of the respondents

TARIQ A MOTA

for several years. However, the allegations became the basis of adverse administrative action as well as criminal proceedings, which culminated in issuance of the impugned order bearing Government Order No. 181-HUD of 2007-dated 01.06.2007 removing the petitioner from service. Learned counsel submits that removal from service had grave civil consequences, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to continue serving in his substantive service career and badly affecting his financial security, service progression and future retirement benefits. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were thoroughly examined by the respondents and, accordingly, criminal proceedings were initiated in relation to the alleged use of a forged engineering degree certificate. He submitted that the documents, forming part of the departmental record, refer to a judgement of the competent criminal court dated 11-12-2013 and submitted that the findings recorded in the subsequent departmental material also refer to the state of the prosecution, evidence and the question of whether the alleged certificate had been proved to be forged. However, the criminal proceedings culminated in the acquittal of the petitioner. 04/ Learned counsel for the petitioner relies further upon the subsequent departmental consideration of the matter, which examined the material concerning the genuineness of his engineering degree and the sustainability of the allegations. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the light of the judicial outcome and the subsequent departmental examination, the respondents were required to determine the consequential action strictly in accordance with law, as the action taken against the petitioner could not continue to operate to his prejudice without a lawful and reasoned

TARIQ A MOTA

determination of its consequences after his reinstatement and the respondents were required to consider the status of the intervening period of the petitioner, his pay and service progression and the resulting impact on his retirement benefits. It is submitted that after reconsideration of the matter, the Government issued Order No. 196-HUD of 2018 dated 07.07.2018, whereby the applicant was ordered to be reinstated in service and the petitioner has relied upon its operative provisions, particularly those relating to reinstatement and the determination of salary and other service benefits. 05/ Grievance of the petitioner is that the said reinstatement order restored him to service, but the consequential monetary and service benefits arising from the reinstatement have not been fully extended to him and the petitioner has repeatedly sought a proper determination of his entitlement, including the treatment of the period during which he remained out of service pursuant to the order dated 01.06.2007. However, learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioner is not confined merely to reinstatement but also on the lawful determination of his service record and the financial consequences flowing from the impugned removal order, the subsequent judicial and departmental proceedings, and the reinstatement order. It is submitted that these matters ought to have been examined comprehensively by the respondents instead of leaving the consequences of the intervening period unresolved. It is submitted that the petitioner was thereafter even transferred to various places. However, the petitioner retired in the year 2023, which made it, even otherwise, necessary for the respondents to finalize his service book, pay fixation, qualifying service, pension papers and all other admissible terminal benefits on the basis of the

TARIQ A MOTA

legally correct service position and the petitioner maintains that the period affected by the removal order must be examined in the light of the governing service rules, the operative terms of Government Order No. 196-HUD of 2018 and the final outcome of the criminal and departmental proceedings. The petitioner seeks a determination as to whether the period is to be treated as duty, qualifying service or otherwise, and whether the applicable rules entitle him to salary arrears or other monetary benefits for that period. 06/ Be that as it may, after arguing the matter for a considerable period of time, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to treat this petition as comprehensive representation of the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and in terms of order No. 196- HUD of 2018 dated 06-07-2018. 07/ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the present O.A is disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. 08/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the material available on record. 09/ Having regard to the limited and innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition together with all documents and annexures appended thereto as well as the representation, if any filed by the petitioner earlier, as a

TARIQ A MOTA

comprehensive representation and consider and decide the averments put forth therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and governing legal framework and in terms of Government order NO. 196-HUD of 2018 dated 06-07-2018, having the effect of reinstating the petitioner, of course, subject to his eligibility and entitlement under law and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so. The petitioner shall also be paid the wages if the aforesaid order dated 06-07-2018 holds the field as on date. Needful to be done within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order and copy of this O.A is served upon the respondents. 10/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this O.A 1197/2026 is disposed of along with connected M.As. (M. S. LATIF) Member (Judl.) TARIQ MOTA CONSULTANT (PS) 28-10-2026

TARIQ A MOTA