UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (ARI AND TRAININGS) vs MOHAMMAD ASHRAF BHAT AND ORS.

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court


Serial No. 08
Regular Cause List

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


WP (C) No. 2231/2025
CM No. 1894/2025




UT of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr.
… Petitioner(s)

Through: -
Mr Numan Idrees Malik, Government Advocate.

V/s
Mohd. Ashraf Bhat and Ors.
… Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate with
Mr Masroor Ahmad Mir, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE



(ORDER)
28.10.2026


01. The present Petition has been preferred with the following
prayers:


“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby

quashing/ setting aside the Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench in T. A.
No. 2271 of 2021 titled Mohd. Ashraf Bhat & Ors. V/S State of
J&K and Ors.; and
b) Any other Writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper also be issued in favour of the
Petitioners and against the Respondents.”

02. The Respondents herein are the employees of Government
Press, Jammu & Kashmir and are governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 [SRO 149 of 1973] as well as by the
J&K Press (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1980.

WP (C) No. 2231/2025
CM No. 1894/2025
Page 2 of 4

03. The bone of contention is that in Schedule “C” of SRO 149 of
1973, there are two categories of employees; one is Category-A and the
other Category-B.
04. The Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the employees
falling under Category-A are ITI certificate/ diploma holders, whereas, the
Category-B employees are not qualified, but are skilled and experienced.
05. The Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that SRO 149
st
of 1973 was repealed long back on 1 of August, 1980 vide SRO 403 of
1980 and, thereafter, was formally replaced by virtue of SRO 91 of 1982
nd
dated 22 of March, 1982, therefore, it would not be applicable to grant any
benefit to the present Respondents.
06. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the
Petitioners cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, as they are accepting
that as per Schedule “C” of SRO 149 of 1973, they have granted the benefit
to the Category-A employees having ITI in different trades with three
years’ experience for the purpose of higher pay grade, but the Category-B
employees, who are in Schedule “C” as ‘Skilled Workers’ and not having
ITI but having seven years of experience, have been denied this benefit.
07. The Counsel for the Respondents submits that there is grave
violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as two set of employees
falling in the same Schedule “C” of the same SRO 149 of 1973 have been
dealt with separately.
08. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.
09. The employees falling in Category-A of Schedule “C”
stipulated in SRO 149 of 1973 have been dealt with and have been given
th
the benefit as a result of Order dated 13 of May, 2015 passed in SWP No.
th
235/2010, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8 of May, 2017
in LPA No. 123/2015, and also the dismissal of the SLP (C) No.
th
33122/2017 on 20 of March, 2018 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Upon such

WP (C) No. 2231/2025
CM No. 1894/2025
Page 3 of 4

proposition having been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
question which arises before the Court was that if the benefit has been
granted for the employees covered under Category-A of Schedule “C” of
the Rules of 1973, then whether such benefit would mandatorily have to be
given to Category-B of the same Schedule of the same SRO as well.
10. Schedule “C” of the J&K Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1973 (SRO 149 of 1973) relating to ‘Skilled Workers’ reads as follows:
“ Category-A : Diploma holder from Polytechnics or
with equivalent qualifications recognized by the Government.
In particular cases also promotion category for Category-B of
skilled workers.
Category-B : Workers for whom skill in a trade is pre-
requisite. Promotion Category for category “A” of semi-skilled
workers from amongst ITI certificate holders in different trades
who have at least three years’ experience and from others with
at least 7 years’ experience in the particular trade. This will
also apply to those who are 2 years diploma holders.”

11. Both Category-A and B have been kept in Schedule “C” of the
Said SRO 149 of 1973 in the category of ‘Skilled Workers’ and once the
Counsel for the Petitioners is unable to refute that the employees falling
under Category-A in the ‘Skilled Workers’ have been given the complete
benefit of SRO 149 of 1973 in the shape of upgradation of pay grade, then
there is no reason why this Court makes an interference when the same
benefit has been extended to the employees falling under Category-B, who
are also ‘Skilled Workers’ falling in the same Schedule “C” of the same
SRO 149 of 1973.
12. In the light of the clear analogy arising out of SRO 149 of
1973 pertaining to ‘Skilled Workers’ falling under Category-A and B of
Schedule “C”; as well as the litigation for the employees falling under
Category-A having been upheld upto to the Hon’ble Apex Court; and
employees falling under Category-B being at par with the Category-A
employees, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned

WP (C) No. 2231/2025
CM No. 1894/2025
Page 4 of 4

Order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is
dismissed .
13. Interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand
vacated.
14. Miscellaneous Application(s), if any pending, shall also stand
disposed of, accordingly.


YASH PAUL BOURNEY) (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)
(
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

SRINAGAR
th
October 28 , 2026
“TAHIR”
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document