UT OF J AND K TH CHIEF SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIAT JAMMU AND OTHERS vs DEV RAJ

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

WP(C ) No.3343/2026
Caveat No. 2195/2026
Reserved on: 21.10.2026
Pronounced on: 23 .10.2026
Uploaded on : 23 .10.2026

whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced:Full

UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others
…. Petitioners

Through: - Mr. Ravinder Gupta AAG
vs …Respondent(s)
Dev Raj

Through: - Mr.Nitin Bhasin Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY,JUDGE
JUDGMENT
SanjeevKumar, J
Caveat No.2195/2026.
With the appearance of learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent, caveat stands discharged.
WP(C ) No. 3343/2026
1. The petitioners-Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
and others, have called in question an order and judgment dated
02.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu

2

Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in TA No. 507/2022,
titled Dev Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others , whereby the
Tribunal has directed the petitioners to regularize/confirm the
promotion of the respondent as Section Officer with effect from the
date he was promoted as In-charge Section Officer or the date on which
he became entitled to promotion to the said post, whichever is later.
The petitioners have also been directed to consider the case of the
respondent for his subsequent promotion to the post of Administrative
Officer, after regularization of his promotion as Section Officer, with
all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including arrears of
salary, allowances and retiral benefits, including revision of pensionary
entitlements. The entire exercise has been directed to be completed
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of the order.
2 The writ petition, which was originally instituted before
this Court as SWP No. 1650/2016, came to be transferred to the
Tribunal upon the enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Act, 2019, and was registered as TA No. 507/2022.
3 The impugned judgment has been assailed by the
petitioners on several grounds. However, before adverting to the
grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners, it would be
appropriate to briefly notice the facts giving rise to the present
controversy.

3

Brief facts:
4 The respondent was initially appointed as Junior Assistant
in the Designs, Inspections and Quality Control Wing of the Public
Works Department on 21.02.1979. He was promoted as Senior
Assistant in the year 1985 and thereafter as Head Assistant vide Order
No. DD/9 of 1995 dated 05.05.1995, with effect from 29.10.1990.The
Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service Recruitment
Rules, 1997, notified vide SRO 180 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules of 1997”), govern the recruitment and promotion to various
posts in the non-gazetted ministerial establishment of the Public Works
Department. Schedule-II-B, Class-I, Category-A of the aforesaid Rules
prescribes promotion to the post of Section Officer from amongst
eligible Head Assistants possessing the requisite qualifying service.
The respondent's case before the Tribunal was that, having been
promoted as Head Assistant with effect from 29.10.1990, he had
completed the requisite five years of service on 29.10.1995 and,
therefore, had become eligible for consideration for promotion to the
post of Section Officer. He further pleaded that, despite being the
senior-most Head Assistant and having rendered long and satisfactory
service, his claim for regular promotion was not considered for several
years.
5 It is an admitted position that the respondent was assigned
the charge of Section Officer on an in-charge basis vide Order No. 43
of 2000 dated 29.07.2000, following the superannuation of Shri O.N.

4

Koul, the then incumbent Section Officer. The respondent was also
sanctioned charge allowance with effect from 01.08.2000, pursuant to
the approval granted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its
meeting held on 24.09.2005.The respondent further relied upon
communications dated 23.06.2006, 14.09.2007, 17.12.2009, 01.06.2011
and 24.09.2012, whereby the competent departmental authority had
recommended his case for regularisation of his in-charge promotion as
Section Officer with effect from 01.08.2000. According to the
respondent, notwithstanding these recommendations and his continuous
performance of duties attached to the higher post, the petitioners failed
to take a final decision on his claim.
6 The petitioners contested the claim before the Tribunal,
primarily on the ground that although the respondent had been placed
as In-charge Section Officer with effect from 01.08.2000, he had
acquired eligibility for regular promotion only on 21.11.2011. It was,
accordingly, pleaded that his services against the post of Section
Officer could be regularized only with effect from the latter date.
7 The Tribunal, upon consideration of the rival submissions
and the material placed on record, accepted the respondent's claim and
issued the directions noticed hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners have approached this Court.

5

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:
8 Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned Additional Advocate
General, submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the mandate
of Schedule-II-B, Class-I, Category-A of the Rules of 1997. According
to him, the respondent could not have been regularised as Section
Officer from a date anterior to the date on which he fulfilled the
prescribed eligibility conditions.Learned counsel would further contend
that an in-charge arrangement does not, by itself, confer any vested
right to regular promotion. The respondent, according to the petitioners,
could not claim regularisation from 01.08.2000 merely because he had
been entrusted with the duties of the higher post or had been paid
charge allowance. It is, therefore, urged that the Tribunal has erred in
directing regularisation with retrospective effect and in extending
consequential monetary and retiral benefits.The challenge is also
directed against the consequential direction requiring the petitioners to
consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of
Administrative Officer after regularisation of his promotion as Section
Officer. On these grounds, the petitioners seek setting aside of the
impugned judgment.
Analysis and conclusion:
9 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record, we are of the considered view that no ground is
made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

6

10 The controversy involved in the present petition is with
regard to the respondent’s claim for regularisation of his in-charge
promotion as Section Officer with effect from 01.08.2000 and his
further consideration for promotion to the post of Administrative
Officer.
11 There can be no dispute with the proposition that
promotion to a higher post has to be regulated by the applicable
Recruitment Rules. An employee does not acquire a right to regular
promotion merely because he has been assigned the charge of a higher
post. At the same time, the claim of an employee for promotion, if
otherwise eligible, is required to be considered in accordance with the
applicable rules.In the present case, the respondent was promoted as
Head Assistant with effect from 29.10.1990 and was subsequently
assigned the charge of Section Officer vide order dated 29.07.2000,
with effect from 01.08.2000. The respondent has also relied upon the
recommendations made by the departmental authorities from time to
time for regularisation of his promotion.The primary contention raised
by the petitioners is that the respondent acquired eligibility for regular
promotion only on 21.11.2011 and, therefore, his promotion could not
have been regularised with effect from 01.08.2000. The question,
therefore, is whether the impugned judgment suffers from any error
warranting interference by this Court.
12 The Tribunal, while considering the claim of the
respondent, has taken note of his service particulars, the order assigning

7

him the charge of Section Officer, the sanction of charge allowance and
the recommendations made by the departmental authorities for
regularisation of his promotion. The petitioners have not been able to
demonstrate that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is contrary to
any specific provision of the applicable Recruitment Rules.
13 It is true that an in-charge arrangement, by itself, does not
confer a right to regular promotion. However, the respondent’s claim
cannot be examined merely with reference to the fact that he was
holding the post on an in-charge basis. His eligibility under the Rules
of 1997, coupled with the material noticed by the Tribunal, was also
required to be taken into consideration.The petitioners have placed
reliance upon the requirement of five years’ qualifying service
prescribed under Schedule-II-B, Class-I, Category-A of the Rules of
1997. The said requirement was completely fulfilled by the respondent.
On 01.08.2000, when he was made In-charge S.O, he had more than 09
years of service as Head Assistant. It is, thus, not demonstrated as to
how the respondent lacked eligibility/qualification to hold the post on
01.08.2000 . No material has been brought to our notice which would
persuade us to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this
regard suffer from any patent illegality. It is also relevant to notice that
the respondent’s case for regularisation had been recommended by the
departmental authorities on more than one occasion. Although such
recommendations do not, by themselves, confer an indefeasible right to
promotion, the claim of the respondent was required to be considered in
accordance with the applicable Rules. The petitioners have not

8

satisfactorily explained their prolonged failure to take a final decision
on the respondent’s claim.The Tribunal has directed regularisation of
the respondent’s promotion from the date he was placed as In-charge
Section Officer or the date on which he became entitled to promotion,
whichever is later. The direction, therefore, has to be read in the context
of the eligibility prescribed under the Rules and cannot be construed as
dispensing with any statutory requirement governing promotion to the
post.The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on an in-charge
basis cannot, by itself, be a ground for setting aside the impugned
judgment. The petitioners have failed to establish that the directions
issued by the Tribunal are contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules
or that the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court.
14 So far as the direction for consideration of the
respondent’s claim for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer
is concerned, the same does not confer upon him an automatic right to
such promotion. His claim is required to be considered by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable Recruitment
Rules and other governing provisions. No interference with this
direction is, therefore, called for.The consequential benefits directed by
the Tribunal shall follow in accordance with the terms of its order and
the applicable service rules. The mere fact that the respondent was
initially assigned the charge of Section Officer on an officiating basis
cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny him the arrears that may accrue to
him on his regular promotion as Section Officer w.e.f 01.08.2000.

9

15 It is well settled that this Court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the Tribunal unless the same are shown to be perverse,
contrary to the applicable statutory provisions or otherwise legally
unsustainable. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to
establish any such infirmity in the impugned judgment.Having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no sufficient ground
to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. The challenge to the
impugned judgment, therefore, fails.
16 For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioners shall implement the directions issued by the Tribunal in
accordance with the terms of the impugned judgment.

(M.A. CHOWDHARY)) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
23.10.2026
Sanjeev
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Sanjeev Kumar
2026.10.23 13:31
I am the author of this
document