Central Administrative Tribunal
Javaid Ahmad Bhat and others vs AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT on 28 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 5
O.A./1173/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ PROMOTION ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 1
Order Dated: 28/10/2026
JAVAID AHMAD BHAT AND OTHERS
Vs
AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. S F BANDEY THROUGH VC
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. SYED MUSAIB, DAG FOR R1-R5, NONE FOR R6-R8
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. Before proceeding further, it is noticed from the record that the applicants have filed MA No. 1430/2026 seeking permission to file a joint Original Application. For the reasons stated therein, the said miscellaneous application is allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present Original Application has been filed by the applicants, who belong to communities that were compelled to leave the Kashmir Valley during 1989–1990 and who subsequently returned pursuant to the initiative of the Government for their return and rehabilitation. It is submitted that the applicants were selected and appointed in the respondent Department in the year 2021 against the posts of Field Assistant-III/Field Supervisor Mushroom/Assistant Store Keeper (Field Assistant-III/Equivalent) under the Prime Minister’s Package for the return and rehabilitation of migrants.
3. Learned counsel further submits that, in the year 2022, the Government of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, pursuant to a decision of the Administrative Council, introduced measures to address the stagnation in the career progression of employees appointed under the Prime Minister’s Package. The policy, inter alia, provided for reckoning parallel seniority from the date of appointment and the creation of supernumerary posts at the higher level, wherever required. It is contended that the Finance Department stipulated a safeguard to the effect that such employees shall not be denied promotion on the ground of non-availability of posts if their juniors in the regular cadre have been promoted.
4. It is further submitted that, on 14.09.2026, the respondents promoted 22 employees appointed under the Prime Minister’s Package, who had been selected and appointed along with the applicants as Field Assistant- III/Equivalent, to the post of Field Assistant-II/Equivalent. However, vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2026, the respondent Department promoted proforma respondents Nos. 6 to 8, belonging to the regular cadre of Field Assistant-III/Equivalent, to the post of Field Assistant-II/Equivalent. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 6 was appointed through direct recruitment, whereas respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were appointed by promotion, all in the year 2023. According to the applicants, they entered service in the year 2021 and are, therefore, senior to the said proforma respondents in terms of length of service in the Field Assistant- III/Equivalent cadre.
5. Learned counsel accordingly contends that the safeguard stipulated by the Finance Department stands attracted upon the promotion of the applicants’
juniors in the regular cadre. The applicants, therefore, seek a direction to the official respondents to grant them promotion to the post of Field Assistant- II/Equivalent by upgrading the corresponding supernumerary posts at the higher level and reducing an equal number of supernumerary posts at the lower level of Field Assistant-III/Equivalent, with effect from 15.09.2026, the date on which proforma respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were promoted, along with all consequential benefits. It is, however, clarified that the applicants do not seek to disturb or unsettle the promotions already granted to proforma respondents Nos. 6 to 8.
6. Learned counsel for the official respondents is present pursuant to the advance notice served by learned counsel for the applicants.
7. Issue notice.
8. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, accepts notice and seeks time to file a reply/objections. None appears on behalf of proforma respondents Nos. 6 to
8. Let notice be served upon the said respondents through their respective Heads of Department. The applicants shall take requisite steps for effecting such service.
9. Three weeks’ time is granted to respondents to file their reply/objections, with an advance copy thereof to be furnished to learned counsel for the applicants.
10. The arguments on interim relief shall be considered after the reply/objections are filed by the respondents.
11. List on 25.11.2026.
Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J)
Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )