Chuni Lal Pandita vs HOME DEPARTMENT

:: 1 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 363/2022
Reserved on:- 09.02.2026
Pronounced on: - 19.08.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)


Chuni Lal Pandita s/o Pt. Tika Lal Pandita age 68 r/o Kralagund
Langate Kashmir, presently at 29 Ext Sector A Sainik Colony Jammu
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. R Koul)
VERSUS
1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Through Secretary/Commissioner,
Home Department, 180001.
Civil Secretariat Jammu.

2. Director General of Police J&K Govt. Jammu
Pin Code: 180001
…Respondents.


(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld,AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta,
DAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 2 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs: -
a) The applicant prays that order impugned dated 13.8.21 and
communication dated 18.12.2021 be set aside and quashed;
b) That the respondents be directed to grant benefits arising under
aforesaid SRO as decided in terms of order no 2172 dated
23.5.2018 Since the aforesaid amount has been wrongly
withheld by the respondents without any justifiable cause, the
applicant is entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. from the date
it became due, which the respondents are liable to pay.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are
as follows: -
a) The brief facts of the case, as projected by the applicant, are
that the applicant is an ITI-trained person in the trade of
Electrician, having completed a two-year course from ITI
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

Baramulla, Kashmir. He was appointed as Constable
(Electrician) after undergoing a test conducted by the Pioneer
Platoon, vide Order No. 483/83 dated 06.08.1983. According to
the applicant, his appointment as Constable (Electrician) itself
reflected the technical nature of his qualification and duties.
b) The applicant contends that under various Government
Orders/SROs, particularly SRO 149 of 1973, ITI-trained and
other skilled/semi-skilled personnel were entitled to higher pay
scales on the basis of their technical qualifications. Since the
benefit of such higher pay scales was allegedly not extended
uniformly by the Department, a number of employees
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
The lead matter was SWP No. 60/1990 titled Uttam Chand &
Others v. State & Others , wherein directions were issued
regarding grant of appropriate pay scales to eligible trained
personnel.
c) It is further the case of the applicant that, following various
judicial proceedings and representations made by similarly
situated employees, the Government constituted a Committee to
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

examine the issue. Pursuant thereto, PHQ Order No. 2172 of
2018 dated 23.05.2018 came to be issued, whereby the benefit
of skilled grades was extended to certain personnel, while an
exercise was also contemplated in respect of other eligible
employees.
d) The applicant claims that despite possessing the requisite
technical qualification and having been appointed as Constable
(Electrician), the benefit was not extended to him. He,
therefore, approached this Tribunal by way of T.A. No.
62/563/2020. The said T.A. was disposed of vide order dated
09.02.2021 with a direction to the respondents to consider his
claim for grant of higher pay scale in terms of SRO 149 of 1973
dated 07.07.1973 and PHQ Order No. 2172 of 2018 dated
23.05.2018. The Tribunal, however, expressly clarified that it
had not entered into the merits of the claim.
e) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents considered
the claim of the applicant and rejected the same vide PHQ
Order No. 2460 of 2021 dated 13.08.2021. Aggrieved thereof,
the applicant served a legal notice dated 08.12.2021. His claim
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

was again declined through communication dated 18.12.2021.
Consequently, the applicant has approached this Tribunal
seeking quashing of the aforesaid rejection order and
communication and a direction to the respondents to extend to
him the benefits flowing from SRO 149 of 1973 and PHQ
Order No. 2172 of 2018 dated 23.05.2018, along with
consequential monetary benefits and interest.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have
averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the Original Application by
filing their written statement. At the outset, they have raised
preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the O.A.,
contending that no fundamental, statutory or legal right of the
applicant has been infringed and that no enforceable cause of
action has accrued in his favour. They have further alleged that
the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands
and has misrepresented the factual position.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the applicant was
appointed as Constable (Electrician) vide District Police Office,
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

Kupwara Order No. 483 of 1983 dated 06.08.1983 against a
vacancy of General Cadre Police Constable and in the pay scale
applicable to General Cadre Police Constables. According to
them, the applicant continued to remain part of the
General/Executive Cadre and was not borne on the cadre
strength of the technical units, namely PTWS/Pioneer Platoon.
c) The respondents further state that the applicant served the
Police Department for about 30 years and retired on attaining
the age of superannuation in the year 2013. According to his
service record, he did not possess the technical qualification
required for grant of skilled grades. It is also their case that
throughout his service career the applicant never raised any
claim for skilled grade or higher salary on the basis of technical
qualification and continued to draw the pay scales applicable to
the General Cadre Police Constabulary.
d) The respondents have explained that skilled grades were
initially extended to the petitioners in SWP No. 60/1990 titled
Uttam Chand & Others. Subsequently, a High-Level Committee
was constituted to identify other similarly situated police
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

personnel belonging to PTWS/Pioneer Platoon for a one-time
settlement of the issue. On the recommendations of the said
Committee, the benefit was extended to 169 police personnel
through different Government/PHQ orders.
e) It is specifically pleaded that the applicant was neither borne on
the cadre strength of PTWS/Pioneer Platoon nor recommended
by the Committee for grant of skilled grade. The respondents,
therefore, contend that the applicant cannot claim parity with
the personnel covered by PHQ Order No. 2172 of 2018 dated
23.05.2018, under which skilled grades were granted to 122
police personnel borne on the cadre strength of PTWS/Pioneer
Platoon pursuant to Home Department Order No. 462 of 2013
dated 24.10.2013 read with Home Department Order No. 56-
Home of 2016 dated 02.02.2016.
f) The respondents further contend that the applicant accepted the
terms and conditions of his appointment as well as the
applicable pay scales and served for about three decades
without raising any objection. During the course of his service,
he attained the rank of Head Constable and also availed the
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

benefit of in-situ pay scales applicable to the General Cadre
Police Constabulary. Having accepted such benefits throughout
his service career, the applicant, according to the respondents,
cannot after retirement seek parity with employees belonging to
a different technical cadre.
g) It is further pleaded that the applicant raised the present claim
for the first time after about seven years of his retirement by
filing T.A. No. 62/563/2020 . The said T.A. was disposed of on
09.02.2021 only with a direction to consider his claim, without
expressing any opinion on its merits. In compliance with the
said direction, the competent authority considered the
applicant’s case and rejected it vide PHQ Order No. 2460 of
2021 dated 13.08.2021. The respondents, therefore, maintain
that the earlier order of the Tribunal did not confer any
substantive right upon the applicant to receive the skilled grade
and that the direction stood complied with upon consideration
of his claim.
h) On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents submit that the
applicant is not similarly situated to the personnel who were
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

granted the benefit of skilled grades and, therefore, cannot
invoke the principle of parity. They accordingly pray for
dismissal of the Original Application as being devoid of merit.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply statement, the petitioner has averred as
follows: -
a) In the rejoinder, the applicant has controverted the stand taken
by the respondents and reiterated that he was technically
qualified in the trade of Electrician, having acquired ITI
qualification from ITI Baramulla in the year 1973. He
emphasizes that his appointment order itself describes him as
Constable (Electrician) and that he was appointed after
undergoing a technical test. According to him, these facts belie
the respondents’ assertion that he did not possess the requisite
technical qualification.
b) The applicant further contends that the exercise contemplated
under the order dated 23.05.2018 was required to identify all
eligible personnel, including non-petitioners, but the
Department adopted a selective approach and left out persons
such as the applicant. He maintains that despite the directions
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

passed in T.A. No. 563/2020 , the respondents rejected his claim
without properly considering his technical qualification and
without identifying any material distinction between his case
and those employees who were granted the benefit.
c) The applicant accordingly alleges that the impugned rejection is
arbitrary and discriminatory and amounts to creating an
impermissible classification amongst similarly situated
employees, contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. He, therefore, reiterates his prayer for setting aside the
impugned rejection and for grant of the consequential benefits
claimed in the O.A.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made
by them.
6. The controversy in the present Original Application lies in a narrow
compass. The applicant seeks grant of higher/skilled pay scale by
placing reliance upon SRO 149 of 1973 and PHQ Order No. 2172 of
2018 dated 23.05.2018. The applicant was appointed as Constable
(Electrician) vide Order No. 483 of 1983 dated 06.08.1983 and
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

continued to serve the Police Department for about three decades until
his retirement on superannuation in the year 2013. The respondents,
however, maintain that the applicant was appointed against a vacancy
of General Cadre Police Constable, remained borne on the
General/Executive Cadre and was never part of the technical units,
namely PTWS/Pioneer Platoon.
7. What assumes significance is that during his entire service career
spanning approximately thirty years, the applicant did not challenge
the pay scale attached to his post nor did he seek skilled grade on the
basis now urged before this Tribunal. The specific stand of the
respondents is that the applicant continued to draw the pay and
allowances admissible to the General Cadre Police Constabulary,
earned promotion up to the rank of Head Constable and also availed
the benefit of in-situ pay scales applicable to that cadre without any
objection. The applicant retired from service in the year 2013,
whereas his first proceedings claiming the benefit in question were
instituted only in the year 2020, i.e. after about seven years of his
retirement.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

8. A claim relating to fixation of pay or placement in a particular pay
scale cannot ordinarily be permitted to remain dormant for decades
and thereafter be revived after retirement merely because some other
employees had approached the Court and obtained relief. A person
who remains satisfied with the service conditions and pay scales
applicable to him throughout his service career cannot, after an
inordinate lapse of time, seek reopening of matters which have long
since attained finality. Entertaining such stale claims would result in
unsettling settled service matters after several decades.
9. In the present case, the cause sought to be projected by the applicant
relates back to his service commencing in the year 1983. He served
for nearly thirty years and retired in 2013 without pursuing the present
claim during his service tenure. The first proceedings were admittedly
instituted only in the year 2020. Thus, the applicant seeks
financial/service benefits relating to a period extending several
decades into the past. The pleadings do not disclose any satisfactory
explanation for such prolonged inaction. Mere submission of
representations or raising a claim at a belated stage cannot, by itself,
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

furnish a fresh cause of action for reopening an otherwise stale service
claim.
10. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by way of T.A. No.
62/563/2020, which was disposed of on 09.02.2021 with a direction to
the respondents to consider his claim for grant of higher pay scale in
terms of SRO 149 of 1973 and PHQ Order No. 2172 of 2018.
Importantly, while issuing the said direction, the Tribunal specifically
clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the case. Pursuant
thereto, the respondents considered the claim and rejected the same
vide PHQ Order No. 2460 of 2021 dated 13.08.2021.
11. The earlier direction to consider the representation/claim cannot have
the effect of wiping out the delay which had already occurred or of
creating a fresh substantive right in favour of the applicant. The order
dated 09.02.2021 merely obligated the competent authority to
examine the claim and did not adjudicate upon or recognise the
applicant’s entitlement to the skilled grade. Therefore, the applicant
cannot derive any advantage merely from the fact that his belated
claim was considered pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

12. Even otherwise, the plea of parity raised by the applicant does not
persuade us to grant the relief sought. The respondents have
specifically pleaded that skilled grades were initially granted to the
petitioners in SWP No. 60/1990 titled Uttam Chand & Others and
thereafter the matter was examined by a High-Level Committee for
identifying similarly situated personnel of PTWS/Pioneer Platoon for
a one-time settlement. On the recommendations of the Committee,
benefits were extended to identified personnel. The applicant,
according to the respondents, was neither borne on the cadre strength
of PTWS/Pioneer Platoon nor recommended by the Committee.
13. PHQ Order No. 2172 of 2018 dated 23.05.2018, upon which
considerable reliance has been placed by the applicant, granted skilled
grades to 122 police personnel borne on the cadre strength of
PTWS/Pioneer Platoon pursuant to Home Department Order No. 462
of 2013 dated 24.10.2013 read with Home Department Order No. 56-
Home of 2016 dated 02.02.2016. The respondents have categorically
distinguished the applicant from those beneficiaries on the ground that
he belonged to the General Cadre Police Constabulary.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

14. Though the applicant asserts that he possesses ITI qualification in the
trade of Electrician and that his appointment order describes him as
Constable (Electrician), possession of a technical qualification by
itself cannot automatically establish parity with employees belonging
to a separate technical cadre for the purpose of grant of a particular
pay scale. Parity in pay and service benefits has to be founded upon
relevant service conditions, cadre position and other applicable
criteria. In the present case, the applicant has not been able to
satisfactorily establish that he stood on an identical footing with the
personnel specifically identified and granted the benefit under PHQ
Order No. 2172 of 2018.
15. The applicant has also contended in his rejoinder that the respondents
adopted a pick-and-choose policy and that his technical qualification
was not properly appreciated while rejecting his claim. However, the
fact remains that the applicant allowed the matter concerning his
alleged entitlement to skilled grade to remain unagitated throughout
his service career and approached the judicial forum only several
years after his retirement. The plea of discrimination cannot be
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

employed to revive a claim which the applicant himself permitted to
become stale by prolonged inaction.
16. Service jurisprudence requires employees to approach the appropriate
forum within a reasonable period when their service rights are
allegedly infringed. Courts and Tribunals cannot come to the aid of
persons who remain dormant over their alleged rights for an
unreasonable length of time and subsequently seek to reopen settled
matters, particularly where such reopening may have financial and
administrative consequences relating to periods long past.
17. In the facts of the present case, the applicant accepted the pay scales
and service benefits attached to his cadre for approximately thirty
years, retired in the year 2013 and raised the claim through judicial
proceedings only in the year 2020. No cogent or satisfactory
explanation has been furnished for not agitating the alleged
entitlement during the long period of service or within a reasonable
period thereafter. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
claim is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

18. We are also of the view that the order dated 09.02.2021 passed in T.A.
No. 62/563/2020 does not improve the case of the applicant, since the
Tribunal had expressly refrained from entering into the merits and had
merely directed consideration of the claim. The respondents have
complied with the said direction by passing PHQ Order No. 2460 of
2021 dated 13.08.2021. A direction for consideration of a stale claim
does not, in the circumstances of the present case, confer a fresh cause
of action so as to erase the effect of the applicant’s prolonged delay.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient ground to
interfere with PHQ Order No. 2460 of 2021 dated 13.08.2021 or the
subsequent communication dated 18.12.2021. The applicant cannot be
permitted, after retirement and after remaining silent for several
decades, to reopen his pay fixation and claim skilled grade
retrospectively by seeking parity with employees whose cadre
position and circumstances have been specifically distinguished by the
respondents.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed on account of
inordinate delay and laches, being a stale claim raised after several
decades and after the retirement of the applicant. We also find no
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 18 :: O.A. No. 363/2022

ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 and
communication dated 18.12.2021.
21. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.


(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /

Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV