Tariq Hussain Pandith vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary Jal Shakti Dept

ITEM 22 1 OA 1018 OF 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR
O.A. 1018/2026
th
Date of Order: 27 October, 2026
C O R A M
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER(JUDL.)
Tariq Hussain Pandith (Age about 60 years)
S/o Ghulam-ud-Din Pandith
R/o Handwara Tehsil Handwara District Kupwara
Pin Code 193221.
……Applicant
By Advocate :
Mr. Iddress Tabassum
VERSUS
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


Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 2 OA 1018 OF 2026


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.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 3 OA 1018 OF 2026

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.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 4 OA 1018 OF 2026

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
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 5 OA 1018 OF 2026

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
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 6 OA 1018 OF 2026

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.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 7 OA 1018 OF 2026

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
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 8 OA 1018 OF 2026

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
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 9 OA 1018 OF 2026

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.
Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi

ITEM 22 10 OA 1018 OF 2026

(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

Digitally signed by Devendra Tripathi
DN: CN=Devendra Tripathi, [email protected]
Devendra Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.10.27 15:41:04+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
Tripathi