SURAJ PARKASH vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT JAMMU AND OTHERS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

[Through Virtual Mode]








RP No. 84/2024 in SWP No. 28/2016


st
Reserved On: 31 of August, 2026.
th
Pronounced On: 8 of September, 2026.
th
Uploaded On: 8 of September, 2026.

Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.



Suraj Parkash , Age: 67 Years
S/O Late Sh. Pritam Lal
R/O Gopinath Vihar, Udheywalla,
Jammu, District Jammu, 180018.
… Petitioner(s)

Through: -
Mr Razat Sudhan, Advocate.

V/s

1. State (now UT) of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government,
Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.

2. Commissioner/ Secretary,
Transport Department, Jammu.

3. Managing Director,
J&K State Transport Corporation.
… Respondents
Through: -
None for R-1 & 2; and
Mr Faiz-ul-Arif Fahmi, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.



(JUDGMENT)




01. The Petitioner had initially filed Writ Petition bearing SWP
No. 28/2016, wherein he had prayed for the grant of following relief(s) in
his favour:
“Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to
grant and place the petitioner in the higher pay grade of
5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 pursuant to the promotion of

RP No. 84/2024 in
SWP No. 28/2016

Page 2 of 6

the petitioner as Test Driver/ Vehicle Inspector w.e.f.
08.06.1992 and release of pay grade appended to the post
pursuant to the SRO 18 dated 19.01.1998 Rule 15 grade
appended to the post;

With further direction directing the respondents to
grant the grade pre-revised as per SRO 93 dated 15.04.2009
issued by the respondent No.1 thereby directing all Head of
Departments, Managing Directors, Chief Executives of
State, PSU, Autonomous Bodies to adopt the Pay Revised
Rules w.e.f. 01.01.2006;

With further writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Work
Manager/ Foreman in the Pay Grade of Rs.9300-
34800+Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-; and

With further writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to release all the consequential monetary and
other service benefits in favour of the petitioner.”

02. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be finally disposed of by
th
this Court vide Judgment dated 15 of October, 2024, in the following
terms:
i. The rejection order dated 24.08.2018 repudiating the claims
of the petitioner are declared as inconsequential/ ineffective;
ii. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order, in
compliance of this judgment, by placing the petitioner in the
relevant pay scales, in terms of SRO 18 of 1998 dated
19.01.1998 and SRO 93 of 2009 dated 15.04.2009; and
iii. The differential arrears be paid to the petitioner, after
conducting the whole exercise, within eight weeks from this
date.”

03. The Petitioner, now, through the medium of the instant Review
th
Petition, seeks review of the aforesaid Judgment dated 15 of October,
2024 passed in SWP No. 28/2016, only to the limited extent that the Court,
while passing the Judgment, has not considered the claim of the Petitioner
for grant of two higher grades which, as per the Petitioner, constitutes a
th
sufficient reason for review of the Judgment dated 15 of October, 2024. It
is stated that since the Petitioner has retired from service on reaching the
age of superannuation in the year 2017 and, having regard to the length of
his service and stagnation on one post with effect from 1992, that is for a
period of 25 years, the Petitioner is entitled to grant of two higher grades,

RP No. 84/2024 in
SWP No. 28/2016

Page 3 of 6

one after the completion of 12 years and the other after completion of
another 12 years.
04. The Respondents, despite availing opportunities, did not
choose to file the Reply/ Objections to this Review Petition and,
nd
accordingly, their right to file the same was closed vide Order dated 22 of
April, 2026.
05. The learned Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner has
argued that the Petitioner had stagnated at one post for a period of 25 years
and was not promoted till his superannuation and that he was entitled to be
granted two higher posts; firstly, on completion of 12 years and secondly,
on completion of 24 years. In this behalf, the learned Counsel has referred
to and relied upon Judgment of the Apex Court passed in SLP No.
18286/2018 titled ‘State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. V. Surender
th
Kumar Parmar’ , decided on 6 of February, 2024; as well as the
Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘State of
Tripura and Ors. v. K. K. Roy, 2004 (9) SCC 65’ , by which the Apex
Court had held that the Petitioners therein were entitled to be granted next
pay grades after 12 years of stagnation at each stage.
06. It was, accordingly, prayed that the relief of promotion having
not been granted by this Court in view of the superannuation of the Review
Petitioner, vide the Judgment sought to be reviewed, the Review Petitioner
seeks review of the Judgment to that extent that he be granted two higher
grades on completion of 12 years twice during the stagnated period of 25
years without any promotion.
07. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3,
however, has strenuously opposed the plea raised on behalf of the Review
Petitioner, asserting that the Review Petitioner had already been granted
relief of in-situ promotions by this Court vide the Judgment sought to be
reviewed; that the Respondents, pursuant to the aforesaid Judgment of this
Court, while appearing in the Contempt Petition bearing CCP (S) No.

RP No. 84/2024 in
SWP No. 28/2016

Page 4 of 6

80/2025 filed by the Review Petitioner, had passed a detailed Order
indicating that the benefits of the revised pay pursuant to SRO 18 of 1998
th
read with Government Order No. 47-F of 1998 dated 19 of January, 1998
had been already extended to the Review Petitioner herein, thereby
complying with the Judgment and Order; and that, on the basis of the said
consideration Order, the contempt proceedings were closed. He, finally,
prayed that keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present Review Petition
deserves to be rejected.
08. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the pleadings available on record.
th
09. It appears that when the Judgment dated 15 of October, 2024
passed in SWP No. 28/2016, sought to be reviewed by the Petitioner in the
present Review Petition, was not implemented by the Respondents, the
Petitioner moved a Contempt Petition bearing CCP (S) No. 80/2025,
th
wherein a Compliance Report dated 15 of November, 2025 came to be
filed on behalf of the Managing Director, J&K, SRTC. In the said
th
Compliance Report, the Respondents had placed on record Order dated 12
of November, 2025, whereby the claim of the Petitioner was stated to have
been considered in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court and it was
observed that, upon examination of the records and the Rules governing the
th th
field, the claim of the Petitioner for grant of benefits under the 5 and 6
Pay Commission is unfounded at this stage, as the said benefits have
already been extended to him from time to time in accordance with the
applicable Rules and Government Orders.
th
10. Thereafter, vide Order dated 25 of November, 2025, the said
Contempt Petition filed by the Petitioner was closed with the observation
that having regard to the directions contained in the Judgment and Order,
non-compliance of which has been complained of in the Contempt Petition,
as also the Compliance Report including the consideration Order,
seemingly the Respondents have complied with the Judgment and Order.

RP No. 84/2024 in
SWP No. 28/2016

Page 5 of 6

11. In the light of the aforesaid subsequent developments, more
th
particularly the consideration Order dated 12 of November, 2025; whereby
the claim of the Petitioner stands considered and rejected purportedly in
compliance of the Judgment sought to be reviewed, this Review Petition at
this stage has turned infructuous . The Petitioner, however, shall be well
th
within his right to challenge the consideration Order dated 12 of
November, 2025 in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.
12. Apart from the above, the in-situ promotions, to which a
Government employee is entitled in the Union Territory of Jammu &
Kashmir on a stagnation of every nine years, have already been released in
in favour of the Review Petitioner in the shape of higher pay grade(s), as is
evident from the record produced by the Respondents.
13. The contention on behalf of the Review Petitioner that he is
entitled to the higher pay grade after every 12 years during stagnation
period of 25 years is not acceptable without any legal foundation in this
behalf in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The Judgments of the
Apex Court referred to and relied upon by the Review Petitioner are not
simply applicable, inasmuch as, those Judgments have been passed in the
context of the service rules or conditions of service applicable to the
employees of Himachal Pradesh and Tripura. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has not been able to justify as to how those Judgments can be
made applicable to the case of the Review Petitioner, more particularly in
the light of the fact when he has already been granted and released the
higher pay scales in view of stagnation after every nine years and there
being no rule with regard to pay revision of a Government employee upon
stagnation of 12 years in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, to
which the Review Petitioner is also subjected to.
14. Viewed thus, the present Review Petition is found to be bereft
of any merit and substance. The same is, accordingly, dismissed .

RP No. 84/2024 in
SWP No. 28/2016

Page 6 of 6

15. The record produced by learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 3 be returned to him against proper receipt.

(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
th
September 8 , 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document