Sonaullah parray vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT on 2 November 2026

1. Sonaullah Parray (Aged 62 years) S/o: Gh Rasool Parray R/o:Sohipora Tehsil and District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No.7006865614

2. Farooq Ahmad Khan (Aged 62 years) S/o:Shier Ali Khan R/o:Kachama Tehsil and District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No.9797859918

3. Gh Mohi-ud-din Payer (Aged 62 years) S/o: Sh. Azim Payer R/o:Swonthipora Tehsil and District Kupwara- 193222 Mobile No.9797210238

4. Sonaullah Mir (Aged 62 years) S/o:Gh Mohi-ud-din Mir R/o:Panzgam District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No.6005834442

5. Hisamu-Din Khatana (Aged 62 years) S/o:Kamar Din Khatana R/o:Awoora Tehsil and District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No.9797166718

6. Abdul Rahman Kalus (Aged 64 years) S/o: Talib-ud-din Kalus R/o: Sogam Tehsil & District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No.

7. Mohd Yassan War (Aged 64 years) S/o:Ab Gani War R/o:Batpora Hyham District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No. 7006865614

8. Abdul Rashid Bhatta (Aged 62 years) S/o:Mohd Jamal Bhatta R/o:Kanthpora Lolab District Kupwara-193222 Mobile No. 7006865614

9. Ab Ahad Rather (Aged 62 years) S/o: Ab Jabar Rather R/o Gulgam Tehsil and District Kupwara-1932222 Mobile No. 9622678878

10. Abdul Rashid Khan (Aged 65 years plus) S/o: Zulkadar Khan R/o: Batpora Hayhama Tehsil and District Kupwara- 1932222, Mobile No.9596768285

11. Mohd Afzal Mir (Aged 62 years) S/o: Lala Mir R/o: Darpora Lolab Tehsil and District Kupwara-1932222 Mobile No.9419015104

12. Mohd Ashraf Mir (Aged 65 years) S/o Gulla Mir R/o:

SHUBHAM SHARMA

Budnambal Tehsil and District Kupwara-1932222 Mobile No. 9419015104

13. Bashir Ahmad Dar (Aged 62 years) S/o: Aziz Dar R/o: Bhatnar District Kupwara Mobile No. 9419015104

14. Sonaullah Mir (Aged 65 years) S/o Ab. Gani Mir R/o: Panzgam Tehsil and District Kupwara-1932222 Mobile No. 9419015104

15. Ab Rashid Khan (Aged 62 years) S/o: Gh Mohammad Khan R/o:Dever Ander Bugh Tehsil and District Kupwara- 193222 Mobile No. 9797859918 .… Applicants

By Advocate : Mr. M A Beigh

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt. Public Health and Engineering Department (Jal Shakti),Civil Secretariat Srinagar/ Jammu.

2. Chief Engineer Public Health and Engineering Department Jal Shakti), Kashmir, Srinagar.

3. Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Kupwara

4. Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department (Jal Shakti) Division Kupwara.

5. Principal Accountant General (A&E) J&K, Srinagar. ....Respondents

By Advocate :- Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, DAG

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

01. Heard on MA 1474/2026. The applicants, fifteen in number, have jointly filed the instant OA, pleading similar facts, a common

SHUBHAM SHARMA

cause of action and identical reliefs. In view of the submissions made in support of the application, the same is allowed. The applicants are permitted to maintain the present original application jointly to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting orders.

02. The applicants, who have since retired from service, are aggrieved of the action of respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (Jal Shakti) Division Kupwara, whereby the benefit of upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990, which had been granted to them during their service career, has subsequently been withdrawn and their pay re-fixed without taking into consideration the said benefit.

03. It is the case of the applicants that the benefit of upgradation under the aforesaid SRO from grade of Rs. 750-940 to 950-1500 was granted to applicant Nos. 1 to 14 by the Chief Engineer, PHE Department Srinagar NO. HE/Estt- 16844-55 dated 21.11.2016 and endorsed by the Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Kupwara H/Q Handwar vide No. 4894-97 02.01.2017. Similar benefit was also granted to applicant No. 15 vide Chief Engineer’s order No. PHE/Estt/16854-55 dated 21-01-2016 and endorsed by Superintendent Engineer Hydraulic Circle Kupwara H/Q Handwara vide No. DSE/Estt-4894-97 dated 02- 01-2017, with the

SHUBHAM SHARMA

concurrence/clearance of the Finance Department, while they were working as Assistant Linemen.

04. The applicants contend that the aforesaid benefit was subsequently withdrawn by the Executive Engineer Public Health merely by making an endorsement/entry in their respective service books to the effect of stepping down the benefit granted under SRO 59 of 1990, without issuance of any formal order in this regard. According to them, such entries were made without their knowledge and behind their back, without affording them any opportunity of being heard. It is further their case that the Executive Engineer was not competent to undertake such exercise or to withdraw the benefit already sanctioned by the competent authorities.

05. It is submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid entries, the pay of the applicants was refixed afresh by excluding the benefit of upgradation earlier granted to them. The corresponding entries were also incorporated in their service books.

06. The applicants further state that they retired/superannuated on different dates, as indicated in the Original Application, and that the entries relating to the grant of upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990, its subsequent withdrawal/stepping down, and the consequential recovery from their retiral benefits were reflected in

SHUBHAM SHARMA

their respective service records. The Last Pay Certificates, excluding the benefit of the aforesaid upgradation, were accordingly forwarded by the PHE Department to the office of the t General Office (A&E) Srinagar.

07. The applicants further submit that no recovery was initiated or effected from their salaries during their active service. It was only after their retirement that the respondents sought to recover the alleged excess payment by withholding their retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave salary, on the ground that the amount paid to them on account of the benefit under SRO 59 of 1990 was liable to be adjusted/recovered.

08. They contend that the decision to effect such recovery was taken without issuance of any formal order, without following the principles of natural justice and without affording them an opportunity of being heard. According to the applicants, they came to know of the proposed recovery only when their retiral benefits, particularly gratuity and leave salary, were not released on the ground that the alleged excess amount paid on account of the aforesaid upgradation was required to be adjusted against their dues.

09. The applicants have questioned the aforesaid action of the respondents as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid

SHUBHAM SHARMA

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court in various judgments, including the judgment titled Sita Ram and others v. U.T of Jammu & Kashmir besides other judgments referred to in the Original Application.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the present Original Application, seeking the following reliefs/directions against the respondents:——

a. by an order or a direction the whole impugned action of respondents of recovery from the applicants from their retiremental benefits to the tune of Rs. 1517740/- ,1311671/-, 1311151/-、 1354309, 1311671/-, 1414018/-, 1199110/-, 1224234/-, 1318643/-, 898082/-, 1143115/- 1059529/-, 1414641/-,1318377/- and 1360607/- be declare null and void be quashed and the respondents be directed to release the same back to the applicants in light of the judgments tilted Sita Ram and others V/S U.T of Jammu & Kashmir and others writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2416/2024 clubbed with writ petition bearing WP© No. 3034/2024 judgment dated 04-04- 2025, judgment titled Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Department of Finance Civil Sectt. J&K Srinagar/

SHUBHAM SHARMA

Jammu V/S Desh Bir Singh and judgment dated 06-03- 2026 passed in WP(C) No. 936/2025 titled U.T of Jammu & Kashmir and others V/S Maqbool Sheikh relied by this Hon'ble tribunal in number of cases including O.A No. 1142/2026 titled Ab Hamid Shah & others V/S Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. judgment dated 14-10-2026. passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

b. Declare the action of the respondents i.e withdrawing the benefit of upgradation under SRO 59 of 1990 from the applicants illegal and unjustified, therefore be quashed with a further direction upon them to restore the benefit of upgradation with retrospective effect from the date of withdrawal and release arrears also.

c. Direct the respondents to release forthwith the entire withheld/withheld/ recovered amount with interest at bank rate.

d. Direct the respondents to refund/release any amount, if already recovered or adjusted, from their retiral benefits of the applicants on account of the alleged excess payment arising from the grant of SRO 59 of 1990, along with such interest as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper;

SHUBHAM SHARMA

e. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the nonapplicants/ respondents.

11. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Irshad Ahmad learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on advance notice, submit 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 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. 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. They submit that the claims raised by the applicants may be examined in the light of the aforesaid judgments and the applicable rules. 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.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

12. 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 Original Application pending, particularly in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the course proposed for consideration of the applicants’ claims in accordance with the applicable rules and the judgments relied upon.

13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions: i. The respondents shall scrutinize the individual case of each applicant and determine, on the basis of the relevant service records and the applicable rules, whether the benefit under SRO59 of 1990 was rightly or wrongly extended to him. Before passing any order adverse to an applicant, the respondents shall issue notice to the concerned applicant, 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 in Sita Ram (supra).

SHUBHAM SHARMA

ii. If, upon such scrutiny, it is found that the benefit under SRO59 of 1990 was rightly granted to the applicant, no consequential re-fixation of his pay or pension or recovery on that account shall be effected, and his pay fixation shall continue in accordance with the benefit so found admissible, consistent with the principles laid down in Sita Ram (supra). iii. If, upon such scrutiny, it is found that the benefit under SRO- 59 of 1990 was wrongly granted, the respondents 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 Maqbool Sheikh & Others (supra). iv. Any decision taken pursuant to the aforesaid scrutiny shall be communicated to the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order, clearly indicating the basis on which his entitlement or otherwise to the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990 has been determined. v. Notwithstanding any such re-fixation, no recovery shall be effected from the applicant in respect of amounts already paid to him on account of the benefit under SRO-59 of 1990,

SHUBHAM SHARMA

provided that such benefit was not obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts on his part, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (supra). vi. Any amount already recovered from the applicant towards the benefit extended under SRO-59 of 1990 shall be refunded in accordance with the applicable law and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Sita Ram (supra). vii. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents.

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

15. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application No.1218/2026 stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SHUBHAM SHARMA

16. No order as to costs.

17. Registry shall consign the record to the record Room after due compliance.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

Shubham sharma

SHUBHAM SHARMA