SAJAD AHMAD BHAT vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION)

Item No.172
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:21.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
Whether the operative part or
full order is pronounced:
Full
WP(C) No.2769/2025
DR. SAJAD AHMAD BHAT
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through:
-
Mr. Taha Khalil, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
-
Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1) The petitioner through the medium of present petition
has challenged Order No.630-GMCA of 2025 dated
30.10.2025, whereby his provisional engagement as Senior
Resident has been cancelled. The petitioner has also sought a
direction upon the respondents, in particular respondent
No.5, to reinstate him along with all monetary and
consequential service benefits. A further direction
commanding respondent No.8 to disburse and release the
legitimately earned wages/salary of the petitioner, has also
been sought.
2) As per case of the petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement
Notice No.05-GMC (R&I) of 2024 dated 27.06.2024 and his
Page 1 of 9

participation in the selection process, the petitioner got
selected and consequently engaged as Senior Resident in the
Department of General Medicine, GMC, Anantnag, on
academic arrangement basis under S.O. 364 of 2020 dated
27.11.2020 for a period of one year extendable upto
maximum of three years. The tenure of the petitioner was to
expire on 14.08.2025. However, the petitioner continued to
discharge his duties as Senior Resident beyond 14.08.2025.
Ultimately, on 30.10.2025, the impugned order came to be
issued by respondent No.5 whereby his engagement as Senior
Resident has been cancelled ab initio , on the ground of
adverse security report from Criminal Investigation
Department (CID). It has been submitted that the salary due
to the petitioner from 02.09.2024 to 30.10.2025, during
which period he actually worked with the respondents, has
not been paid to him
3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned action of
the respondents on the grounds that as per Rule 4(2) of S.O.
364 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020, services of an appointee are
terminable before the expiry of tenure with one month’s
notice from either side or on payment of one month’s salary
in leu of notice by the appointing authority but in the instant
case, the said Rule has not been adhered to by the
respondents. It has been submitted that because the
Page 2 of 9

petitioner was allowed to function beyond the expiry of his
tenure until the passing of the impugned order, as such, it is
deemed that his tenure was extended. Therefore, without
adhering to Rule 4(2) of S.O.364 of 2020, his services could
not have been terminated. It has been further contended that
the respondents have flouted the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as prior to cancelling his engagement, no
opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. It has
been further contended that termination of the petitioner on
the grounds of security clearance is stigmatic in nature, as
such, without holding an enquiry in respect of alleged
adverse security report, engagement of the petitioner could
not have been terminated. It has been further contended that
the action of the respondents is arbitrary in nature. It has
been contended that withholding of legitimately earned salary
of the petitioner amounts to violation of his fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles21 and 23 of the
Constitution of India.
4) The respondents have filed their reply to the writ
petition, in which it has been submitted that the petitioner’s
engagement and release of salary was subject to the report of
character and antecedents from CID regarding which the
petitioner had sworn an affidavit and furnished the same to
the respondents. It has been submitted that pursuant to the
Page 3 of 9

report regarding character and antecedents received from the
CID, the petitioner was relieved from his services. It has been
contended that the petitioner cannot challenge his
disengagement which has been made in accordance with the
terms of his appointment which he has voluntarily accepted.
It has been contended that engagement of the petitioner was
conditional upon the report of his character and antecedents
and once adverse report regarding his character and
antecedents was received, his engagement had to be
terminated.
5) Heard and considered.
6) The admitted facts which emanate from the pleadings of
the parties are that the petitioner was engaged as Senior
Resident on academic arrangement basis under S.O.364 of
2020 in Government Medical College, Anantnag, for a period
of one year. While the petitioner claims that his engagement
is deemed to have been extended beyond the period of one
year, the respondents have denied the same. In fact, there is
nothing on record to show that the period of engagement of
the petitioner was extended beyond the first year. It is also
not in dispute that the petitioner has not been paid
wages/salary for the period he has discharged his duties with
the respondents. The stand of the respondents is that the
Page 4 of 9

engagement of the petitioner and release of salary in his
favour was contingent upon the verification of his character
and antecedents.
7) If we have a look at the conditions attached to the
engagement of the petitioner, as per clause (e), the said
engagement is strictly provisional in nature till the receipt of
verification of documents/testimonials and CID verification. It
further provides that in case adverse report is received from
CID, J&K, the candidate shall not claim for engagement
which shall be deemed to have been cancelled ab initio . The
conditions attached to the engagement of the petitioner
further contain a note to the effect that the said engagement
is strictly provisional till the receipt of verification of
documents/testimonials and CID verification. The
respondents have placed on record copy of the affidavit sworn
by the petitioner at the time of his joining. In the said
affidavit, the petitioner has declared on oath that his
engagement is strictly provisional till the receipt of
verification of documents/testimonials and CID verification.
He has further declared that in case adverse report is
received from CID J&K, he shall not claim for his engagement
which shall be deemed to have been cancelled ab initio .

8) In the face of aforesaid conditions attached to the
provisional engagement of the petitioner, which he has
Page 5 of 9

accepted at the time of his joining by furnishing an affidavit
before the respondents, it becomes clear that engagement of
the petitioner was provisional in nature and it was contingent
upon, inter alia , report relating to his character and
antecedents. It is clearly provided in the conditions attached
to the engagement order that in case there is an adverse
report from the security agencies, the engagement shall stand
cancelled ab initio . Once these conditions have been accepted
by the petitioner with open eyes and he has joined the service
pursuant to the engagement order containing these
conditions he cannot turn around and claim that the order of
his disengagement is violative of principles of natural justice
or that he is entitled to a regular enquiry before his
disengagement. The engagement of the petitioner was purely
contractual in nature governed by the terms and conditions
of the letter of engagement. Therefore, it was open to the
respondents to terminate the engagement in accordance with
the conditions attached to the engagement order. The
contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any
substance.
9) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in “Dr. Shazia Salam vs.
UT of J&K and Ors.” (WP(C) No.494/2023 decided on
01.08.2025), has contended that in similar circumstances,
Page 6 of 9

this Court had held that even a contractual employee is
entitled to an opportunity of defending the accusations and
allegations made against him in a full-fledged enquiry if the
order of disengagement is stigmatic and punitive in nature.
10) I am afraid the ratio laid down in Dr. Shazia Salam’s
case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of the
present case, inasmuch as in the said case, the employer had
granted approval to the extension of petitioner’s term of
engagement from time to time and she had worked with the
respondents for several years before her services were
disengaged on the basis of adverse CID report. It is in those
circumstances that this Court held that the petitioner therein
was entitled to a regular enquiry before being subjected to
disengagement as the order of her disengagement was
punitive and stigmatic in nature. Even in that case the Court
did not grant the relief of reinstatement in service to the
petitioner therein having regard to the fact that engagement
was contractual in nature. In the present case, the
engagement of the petitioner has not been extended by the
respondents beyond the initial period of one year and the
impugned order of disengagement has been issued strictly as
per the terms and conditions of his engagement order.
Page 7 of 9

11) However, so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard
to release of salary/wages for the period he has worked with
the respondents, is concerned, the same cannot be denied to
him. Even if in terms of the conditions attached to the
engagement order a candidate is not entitled to claim wages if
his services are terminated on account of adverse report
relating to his character and antecedents, yet denying
wages/salary to a person who has worked for a particular
period, would be violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of
India. The condition in the engagement order, which
disentitles an appointee to wages/salary for the period for
which he has worked, is in teeth of Article 23 of the
Constitution and, as such, cannot be enforced even if the
appointee has filed an undertaking to abide by the said
condition. In this view of the matter, the respondents cannot
deny wages/salary to the petitioner for the period for which
he has actually worked with them.
12) In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is partly
allowed and while declining to quash the impugned
disengagement order dated 30.10.2025, the respondents are
directed to release the legitimately earned wages/salary in
favour of the petitioner for the period he has worked with the
respondents most expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the date a copy of this order is served upon
Page 8 of 9

them. In default, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest
@6% per annum on the outstanding wages/salary from the
date of filing of this petition till the amount is realised.
(Sanjay Dhar)

Judge
SRINAGAR
21.04.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the Order is speaking: YES
Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO


Page 9 of 9