ROBKAR vs SANJEEV VERMA COMMISSIONER SECRETARY GAD JAMMU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 17.12.2025
Pronounced on: 24.02.2026
Uploaded on: 24 .02.2026
Whether operative part or
full judgment is
pronounced: Full

ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w
CCP(S) No.363/2022
ROBKAR . ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. J. I. Balwan, Advocate.
Vs.
SANJEEV VERMA, COMMISSIONER/ SECRETARY,
GAD, JAMMU.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) This case represents a disturbing chapter in service
jurisprudence (where a litigant, despite having succeeded at
every tier of the judicial hierarchy, finds himself entangled in
what can only be described as a Kafkaesque maze, of
bureaucratic manipulation and deliberate obstruction) or
(exposing a disturbing pattern of administrative recalcitrance
where the executive machinery has systematically attempted
to dilute and defeat a judicial mandate that had attained
finality at the level of the Supreme Court. The State, having
failed in its attempt to sustain the petitioner's premature
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 1 of 24

retirement before the Writ Court, the Division Bench and
ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has chosen to
resurrect what were effectively dead inquiries in order to
defeat a living decree, and to deny promotion on the nebulous
ground of service record, even when such record stands
legally cleansed.
2) The factual canvas is not in dispute. The petitioner's
premature retirement vide Government Order No. 868-GAD
of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 was quashed by this Court vide
judgment dated 07.02.2017 passed in in SWP No. 2140/2015
titled Bhumesh Sharma vs State of J&K . The writ Court
directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits within
one month. The operative para of the judgment reads as
follows:
16. In view of preceding analysis, the inevitable
conclusion is that the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. It is accordingly quashed. The
petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits within one month from today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
3) The State carried the matter in appeal; the Division
Bench dismissed the LPA on 19.10.2022, however, granted
liberty to go ahead with the enquiry they claimed to have been
initiated against the Petitioner and others. Paras 13 and 14
of the judgment read as follows:
“13. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other
than the one taken by the learned Single Judge.
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 2 of 24

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with connected
CIWIAs upholding the judgment and order of learned
Single Judge.
14. However, as regards the allegations leveled by the writ
respondent against the writ petitioner, the State and its
officers at the helm of affairs if are fair enough and have
a will, and do not intend to provide a safe passage either
to writ petitioner or the then officials/officers of Vigilance
Organization, are free to go ahead with such inquiry, if
they deem fit, and complete the same in a time bound
manner without any excuse on the part of officers holding
such inquiry."
4) The SLP preferred by the State before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court thereafter met the same fate on 03.07.2023.
Thus, the judgment dated 07.02.2017 attained finality. What
remained was compliance.
5) However, what ought to have been a straightforward
administrative act of restoration evolved instead into
prolonged resistance. During pendency of the contempt
petition, Respondent No. 1 issued Order No. 1091-JK(GAD) of
2023 dated 08.09.2023 rescinding the premature retirement,
however, with respect to the consequential benefits inserted
a condition that the benefits would be subject to outcome of
departmental proceedings/court case, if any pending against
the Petitioner. Relevant para of the order dated 08.09.2023
reads as follows:
i...However, the consequential service benefits shall be
subject to the outcome of departmental proceedings/
court case pending, if any, against the officer."
It is pertinent to mention here that neither the writ Court
nor the appellate Court had imposed such a condition. The
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 3 of 24

introduction of this caveat marked the beginning of a new
chapter of avoidance.
6) It is a settled canon of law that the fruits of litigation
must not be denied to a successful suitor by the stubbornness
of the State, Judicial review would be rendered sterile if a
judgment, though upheld to finality, could be diluted in
execution through administrative innovation. Yet, the present
case demonstrates how executive machinery can convert a
judicial victory into a mirage, forcing a petitioner to battle for
nearly eight years merely to enforce a judgment that had
already attained finality.
7) The respondents claimed compliance of the judgment
dated 07.02.2017 by issuance of Government Order dated
08.09.2023 rescinding the order of premature retirement and
reinstating the petitioner in service. However, while doing so,
the respondents kept the issue of consequential benefits in
abeyance by making the same subject to the outcome of
certain alleged inquiries, the details whereof were neither
furnished to the petitioner nor placed before this Court. The
compliance was thus partial and conditional. Being conscious
of the fact that the writ judgment had attained finality and
that consequential benefits formed an integral part of the
relief granted, this Court, vide order dated 18.03.2024,
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 4 of 24

directed the respondents to file a fresh compliance report
specifically addressing the release of consequential benefits,
failing which personal appearance of an officer of the
respondent department was ordered.
8) The respondents failed to report complete compliance
and the officer concerned did not appear before the Court as
directed. In view thereof, this Court, vide order dated
29.04.2024, directed the Registry to frame Robkar against the
respondent. Consequently, Robkar came to be framed against
Sanjeev Verma, Commissioner/Secretary Government,
General Administration Department, calling upon him to
show cause as to why proceedings under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him
for non-compliance of the judgment.

9) In the reply filed by the said respondent, while certain
details were furnished regarding release of arrears of salary,
the grant of consequential benefits was sought to be withheld
on the ground that the petitioner was required to be cleared
from vigilance angle. It was stated that as per the record of
the respondents, FIR No. 13/2002 stood registered against
the petitioner and that an inquiry bearing No. JSC-SLK-58/
2004 was pending disposal. On this basis, the respondents
sought to justify the non-release of consequential benefits
despite the finality of the writ judgment.
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 5 of 24

10) The aforesaid stand taken by the respondent was
controverted by Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner. It was submitted that the
affidavit filed by the respondent was factually incorrect and
misleading inasmuch as the petitioner had never been
arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 13/2002, which itself
stands closed. Learned senior counsel further submitted that
a departmental inquiry. had been initiated against the officer
in charge at the relevant point of time, and therefore the said
proceedings could not be cited as an impediment for
withholding consequential benefits. It was also pointed out
that the inquiry bearing No. JSC-SLK-58/2004 had likewise
been closed long ago. Learned counsel emphasized that as on
27.05.2024, when the reply filed by the respondent came to
be considered by this Court in the contempt proceedings, no
disciplinary inquiry was pending against the petitioner which
could legally obstruct the implementation of the writ
judgment. Accordingly, it was contended that the reliance
placed upon these closed matters was nothing but an attempt
to create frustrate the judgment.
11) The Court examined the operative portion of the Division
Bench judgment dated 19.10.2022, which had granted liberty
to the State to proceed with any inquiry, if deemed fit, and to
complete the same in a time-bound manner. The Court
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 6 of 24

observed that despite such liberty having been granted in
October 2022, no inquiry had been concluded till date.
Instead, the respondents had merely directed submission of
action taken reports in respect of matters which, according to
the petitioner, already stood closed.

12) The Court observed that as on date no concluded inquiry
was shown to exist which could legally obstruct
implementation of the writ judgment. Upon being confronted,
learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor, on
instructions, assured the Court that the writ judgment dated
07.02.2017 would be implemented in letter and spirit within
one week.
13) In view of this assurance, the Court deferred further
proceedings in the contempt petition and Robkar and granted
time till 05.06.2024 for filing final compliance report. It was
made clear that failing compliance, the Court would be
constrained to initiate coercive measures against the
contemnor.
14) On 06.08.2024, after hearing learned counsel for both
sides at length, this Court deemed it appropriate to further
crystallize the controversy regarding release of consequential
benefits. With a view to proceeding effectively in the contempt
petition, the Court directed learned senior counsel for the
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 7 of 24

petitioner, Mr. Shah, to file an affidavit within one week
specifically detailing the consequential benefits which had not
been released in conformity with the writ judgment dated
07.02.2017, with a further direction to the Respondent to
ensure compliance with the same.

15) Pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by this
Court, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 08.08.2024
detailing the consequential benefits which, according to him,
had not been released in terms of the writ judgment dated
07.02.2017.
16) On 03.09.2024, the contemnor/respondent appeared in
person before the Court. The Court noted that pursuant to its
earlier order dated 06.08.2024, the petitioner had filed an
affidavit on 08.08.2024 detailing the consequential benefits
not released, wherein it was disclosed that amounts of
₹ 41,24,214/- (credited on 31.03.2024) and ₹ 60,41,299/-
(credited on 30.07.2024) had been released towards arrears
of salary in the Time Scale. The Court observed that these
payments pertained only to arrears against the Time Scale
post held prior to 30.06.2015 and did not address the
petitioner's claim for promotion to Selection Scale and Special
Scale, which he asserted he would have earned had the order
of premature retirement not intervened.
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 8 of 24

17) The petitioner's affidavit was examined in detail. It
recorded that he had been placed at Serial No. 7 in the final
seniority list issued vide Government Order No. 784-GAD of
2014 dated 18.07.2014, and that officers, junior to him, had
been promoted to Selection Scale in 2018 and to Special Scale
in April 2021. The petitioner asserted entitlement to similar
treatment along with fixation of his seniority at Serial No. 1
upon retirement of seniors. He further complained that even
after reinstatement, no posting had been given to him, no
identity card had been issued, no seat or work had been
assigned, and he was not permitted to mark attendance in the
Civil Secretariat.
18) In response to the affidavit, the respondent/contemnor
filed a reply contending that promotions to Selection Grade,
Super Time Scale and Special Scale under the Jammu and
Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 2008 are governed by
Rules 19 and 20, which require selection based on merit,
suitability and service record, vigilance clearance, absence of
pending criminal cases or departmental inquiries, and
consideration by the Establishment-cum-Selection
Committee. It was argued that consequential benefits, at best,
meant a right of consideration in accordance with the Rules.
19) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however,
placed on record various communications to demonstrate
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 9 of 24

that no inquiry or criminal case was pending against the
petitioner. It was pointed out that FIR No. 13/2002 had
culminated in a final report accepted by the competent court
directing departmental action against other officials, and no
articles of charge were framed against the petitioner. It was
further shown that FIR No. 20/2005 stood closed as "not
proved" by the CBI, and that the Special Judge (Anti-
Corruption) had accepted the closure report. Reference was
also made to communications of the Vigilance Organization
dated 18.02.2009 and subsequent departmental
communications clarifying that the matter stood closed with
the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner thus
contended that no inquiry was pending which could justify
withholding consequential benefits.

20) Upon examining the record, the Court observed that the
grounds cited in the minutes of meeting dated 16.05.2024
regarding FIR No. 13/2002 and JSC-SLK-58/2004 were
untenable, as those matters had already been closed. The
Court found that the reliance placed by the respondent upon
pendency of inquiries was contrary to record and appeared to
be an attempt to avoid consequences of contempt
proceedings.
21) The Court further held that the liberty granted by the
Division Bench to proceed with inquiry did not make release
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 10 of 24

of consequential benefits subject to the outcome of such
inquiry, particularly when no inquiry was shown to be
pending. It was clarified that consequential benefits included
not merely monetary arrears but also service benefits,
including consideration for promotion to higher scales in
accordance with the applicable Rules, subject to eligibility
and absence of legal impediment.
22) The Court observed that till date the respondent had
only partially complied with the judgment by releasing
monetary arrears but had failed to place the petitioner's case
before the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee for
consideration of promotion in parity with his juniors. It held
that full compliance would require placing the petitioner's
case before the Committee and according due consideration
in conformity with Rules 19 and 20 of the 2008 Rules.
23) Upon assurance by the contemnor that the case of the
petitioner would be placed before the Establishment-cum-
Selection Committee and the judgment would be
implemented in letter and spirit, the Court granted a last
opportunity of two weeks to ensure full compliance, including
release of all consequential service benefits and appropriate
posting. failing which appropriate orders would be passed.
The matter was directed to be listed on 25.09.2024.
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 11 of 24

24) During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the
petitioner filed an application, being CM No. 6364/2024,
seeking directions for closure of the enquiry initiated against
him vide charge sheets dated 01.07.2024 and 08.07.2024 and
for disclosure of the outcome of the deliberations of the
Establishment-cum-Selection Committee which had
considered his case for promotion. In the said application, the
petitioner traced the history of litigation beginning with his
premature retirement on 30.06.2015, the quashing of the
retirement order by the Writ Court, dismissal of the State's
appeal by the Division Bench on 19.10.2022, and dismissal
of the SLP, thereby rendering the judgment final.
25) The petitioner referred to paragraph 14 of the Division
Bench judgment wherein liberty was granted to the State to
proceed with any enquiry, if deemed fit, and to complete the
same in a time-bound manner. According to the petitioner,
this liberty was confined to any enquiry that was already
pending prior to his premature retirement and did not
authorize initiation of a fresh enquiry after final adjudication
of the matter.
26) It was pleaded that despite repeated directions in
contempt proceedings, the respondents addressed
communications dated 28.11.2023 and 18.12.2023 seeking
status of any RDA allegedly pending against him in
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 12 of 24

connection with FIR No. 20/2005 and related matters. The
petitioner contended that these communications were merely
for seeking status and did not authorize initiation of a fresh
enquiry. He further relied upon this Court's order dated
18.03.2024, wherein it was observed that consequential
benefits could not be kept pending on the plea of a vague
enquiry without disclosure of its nature or fate.
27) The petitioner asserted that without there being any
regular departmental action pending prior to 30.06.2015, the
respondents issued Government Order No. 50-JK(TR) of 2024
dated 03.06.2024 appointing an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter,
two sets of Articles of Charge were served upon him on
01.07.2024 and 08.07.2024, to which he submitted replies
raising preliminary objections as to maintainability and
jurisdiction.
28) It was specifically pleaded that this Court in its order
dated 03.09.2024 had already concluded that the reasons put
forth by the respondents for non-implementation of the writ
judgment were non-existent and contrary to record, and had
clarified that release of consequential benefits was not subject
to outcome of any enquiry. The petitioner also referred to the
respondents' affidavit dated 14.10.2024 wherein it was stated
that his case had been placed before the Establishment-cum-
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 13 of 24

Selection Committee and that the outcome had been kept in
a sealed cover.
29) The petitioner questioned the very initiation of the
enquiry on multiple grounds: that no regular departmental
action was pending prior to his retirement; that the Division
Bench had not permitted initiation of a fresh enquiry; that the
alleged matters stood closed; that initiation of enquiry after
nearly two decades was impermissible under the J&K Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956; and
that the entire exercise was a device to justify non-compliance
of judicial directions and to deny consequential benefits.
30) It was further contended that since he had remained out
of service from 30.06.2015 till reinstatement in September
2023, no service record existed for the intervening period, yet
the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee had allegedly
considered his case and withheld the outcome in a sealed
cover. According to the petitioner, pendency of such enquiry
could not legally obstruct his entitlement to consequential
benefits including promotion to higher scales in parity with
his juniors.
31) On these averments, the petitioner prayed that the
enquiry initiated vide charge sheets dated 01.07.2024 and
08.07.2024 be directed to be closed forthwith, that the
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 14 of 24

respondents be directed to notify the outcome of the
Establishment-cum-Selection Committee's deliberations, and
that under no circumstances grant of consequential benefits
be deferred.
32) On 06.02.2025, during the hearing, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner produced Government Order No.
03-JK (TR) of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 issued by the Transport
Department. Upon perusal, the Court noted that in light of
the recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer appointed
vide Government Order No. 72-JK (TR) of 2024 dated
09.09.2024, and owing to non-availability of records in case
FIR No. 13/2002 (P/S VOJ) and JSC-SLK-58/2004, the
charges levelled against the petitioner could not be
substantiated. Consequently, the Regular Departmental
Action (RDA) initiated against the petitioner was dropped.
However, the order carried a rider that the officer be
administered a strict warning to remain careful in future and
not to take decisions merely on assumptions or presumptions
while discharging official duties.
33) In view of the aforesaid development, learned Senior
AAG sought two weeks' time to apprise the Court about the
outcome of the petitioner's promotion case, which had been
kept in a sealed cover, particularly in light of the dropping of
the RDA. The Court granted time as prayed for and directed
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 15 of 24

that a fresh compliance report/affidavit be filed within two
weeks.
34) In the compliance report filed pursuant to order dated
06.02.2025, the contemnor asserted that the petitioner's case
had been placed before the Establishment-cum-Selection
Committee for release of pending grades of JKAS and that the
Committee had declared him "unfit." Initially, no minutes or
reasons were furnished. Only upon repeated orders, was the
record produced. The minutes reveal no articulated criteria,
no reference to benchmark ACR gradings, no comparative
assessment, and no discernible reasoning. The declaration of
"unfit" stands as a bare conclusion.
35) The respondents have also relied upon an alleged
inquiry. The record, however, reveals that the charges were
not substantiated. The Government's own order records that
the relevant records in the underlying FIRs had been deluged
and destroyed. Yet paradoxically, the Establishment-cum-
Selection Committee has declared the petitioner "unfit" based
on assessment of his "merit and reputation." It is a paradox
of the highest order that the State admits destruction of
records necessary to assess merit, and simultaneously bases
adverse conclusions on an evaluation purportedly drawn from
such non-existent material.
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 16 of 24

36) There is a thin line between administrative discretion
and malicious defiance. In the present case, by initiating what
is styled as a "fresh inquiry twenty-two years after the alleged
events-at a stage when the writ judgment had already
attained finality-and thereafter declaring the petitioner "unfit"
on grounds already examined and effectively closed by the
Vigilance Organization, the respondents have not only
crossed that line but have trampled upon it with impunity.
Liberty granted by the Division Bench to proceed with inquiry
cannot be transmuted into license to neutralize judicial relief.
37) What renders the impugned action of the
Establishment-cum-Selection Committee wholly
unsustainable is the fact that the petitioner has been declared
"unfit" for promotion substantially on the basis of two FIRs,
namely FIR No. 13/2002 and FIR No. 20/2005, both of which
had long since culminated in closure reports. The record
demonstrates that FIR No. 20/2005, after investigation by the
CBI, resulted in submission of a closure report which was
accepted by the competent court, holding that the allegations
were "not proved." Insofar as FIR No. 13/2002 is concerned,
the petitioner was not even arraigned as an accused and the
matter stood closed with, at best, a recommendation for
departmental action. No regular departmental enquiry under
the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 17 of 24

Rules, 1956 was pending against the petitioner at the time of
his premature retirement in 2015, nor was any such enquiry
initiated for nearly two decades thereafter. It was only during
the pendency of the present contempt proceedings in the year
2024, after this Court repeatedly called upon the respondents
to implement the writ judgment and release consequential
benefits, that the enquiry was set in motion by issuance of
Government Order dated 03.06.2024 appointing an Enquiry
Officer, followed by service of articles of charge in July 2024.
The timing of this exercise leaves little room for doubt that the
initiation of the enquiry was not a bona fide administrative
action but a defensive manoeuvre to stave off compliance with
a binding judicial decree.
38) Significantly, even this belated departmental enquiry,
conducted nearly twenty years after the alleged events and
during the subsistence of contempt proceedings, ultimately
resulted in dropping of the Regular Departmental Action, the
charges having been found unsubstantiated and incapable of
proof due to non-availability of records. Yet, while the enquiry
was still pending and before it had culminated in exoneration,
the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee proceeded to
consider the petitioner's case and declared him "unfit,"
ostensibly on the basis of the very FIRs and allegations which
had either been closed or were the subject matter of the
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 18 of 24

belated enquiry. Thus, the petitioner was branded unfit not
on the basis of any proved misconduct, adverse service
record, or subsisting disciplinary finding, but on allegations
which had either been judicially closed as "not proved" or had
not even crystallized into a lawful departmental penalty. To
permit such a course would be to hold that a government
servant may be perpetually haunted by accusations that
never matured into guilt, and that even closure of criminal
proceedings and termination of departmental action would
not cleanse the slate. Such an approach is antithetical to the
settled principles of service jurisprudence, which require that
promotion be denied on the basis of tangible, subsisting
material and not on resurrected shadows of closed
proceedings. The declaration of the petitioner as "unfit" in
these circumstances is therefore vitiated by arbitrariness,
non-application of mind, and a manifest attempt to achieve
indirectly what could not be sustained directly.
39) It is equally significant that the petitioner stood
prematurely retired in June 2015 and remained out of service
until reinstatement pursuant to judicial intervention.
Consequently, there could exist no service record for the
interregnum between 2015 and 2023. The only material that
could possibly have been available for consideration by the
Establishment-cum-Selection Committee was the petitioner's
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 19 of 24

service record prior to 2015. That record necessarily included
the very same FIRs and alleged inquiries which are now
projected as grave impediments rendering him "unfit for
promotion. Yet, it is a matter of record that despite the
existence of those FIRs and allegations, the petitioner was
inducted into the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service
in the year 2010 and placed appropriately in the seniority list.
If those allegations were not considered of such gravity as to
disentitle him from induction into the Administrative Service
itself-a far more foundational milestone in his career-it defies
logic and fairness that the same material, without any fresh
adverse finding or proved misconduct, should suddenly
assume decisive significance to deny him promotional
advancement. What was not treated as disqualifying at the
threshold of induction into a higher cadre cannot, without
new and substantive material, be elevated years later into a
determinative ground for branding him unsuitable. To hold
otherwise would amount to retroactively converting non-fatal
allegations into career-ending disabilities, thereby unsettling
settled service positions and undermining the principle of
consistency in administrative decision-making.

40) Consequential benefits are not ornamental words. They
carry substantive meaning in service jurisprudence. When an
order of premature retirement is quashed ab initio, the legal
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 20 of 24

fiction is that such order never existed. The employee is to be
restored to the same position in which he would have stood
but for the illegal action. This includes continuity of service,
seniority, notional promotion, pay fixation and release of
grades. The respondents cannot superimpose conditions that
the Court did not prescribe.
41) The sequence of events, when examined holistically,
gives rise to a deeply disquieting inference. The initiation of a
departmental enquiry in June-July 2024, nearly two decades
after the alleged incidents and only after repeated directions
of this Court in contempt proceedings, followed almost
contemporaneously by consideration of the petitioner's case
by the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee, cannot be
viewed as a mere coincidence. The enquiry was set in motion
at a stage when the writ judgment had attained finality and
the only surviving obligation upon the State was to release
consequential benefits, including consideration for promotion
in parity with the petitioner's juniors. Instead of effectuating
the judicial mandate, the respondents appear to have revived
dormant allegations and simultaneously placed the
petitioner's case before the Selection Committee, culminating
in a declaration of "unfit" while the enquiry itself was still
pending and before any finding had been returned. This
parallel movement-of instituting a belated enquiry on the one
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 21 of 24

hand and proceeding to assess "merit and suitability" on the
other-creates the unmistakable impression of a coordinated
design to generate a procedural ground for rejecting
promotion.
42) Service jurisprudence does not countenance such
calibrated sequencing of administrative steps to defeat a
judicial outcome. An employee cannot be subjected to a
situation where the pendency of a freshly instituted enquiry,
particularly one arising from matters long closed, becomes
the very reason for denying advancement, and thereafter,
even when the enquiry collapses for want of substantiation,
the stigma continues to operate through a prior declaration of
unfitness. If such a methodology were to be approved, it
would enable the administration to indefinitely forestall
promotion simply by initiating proceedings at strategically
convenient moments. The rule of law demands that
administrative processes be bona fide and temporally
consistent; when action is taken not in the ordinary course of
governance but in response to judicial compulsion, and
structured in a manner that neutralizes the relief granted, the
Court cannot remain a silent spectator. The
contemporaneous initiation of the enquiry and the convening
of the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee in the present
case thus bears the imprint of a strongly suggests a
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 22 of 24

coordinated administrative course resulting in denial of the
promotional benefits which had become legally due to the
Petitioner.
43) This Court, therefore, holds that the decision of the
Establishment-cum-Selection Committee declaring the
petitioner "unfit" is arbitrary. unreasoned and unsustainable
in law. It defeats the effect of the writ judgment and amounts
to indirect non-compliance. The said decision cannot be said
to be the compliance of the judgment dated 07.02.2017, as
such being violative to the judgment is declared void ab initio.
44) The rule of law demands that when a citizen prevails
against the State in a court of law, the State must comply in
spirit and substance. A decree that has survived scrutiny at
every tier cannot be reduced to a mirage through
administrative manoeuvring. To permit such a course would
be to convert judicial review into a decorative exercise and to
render justice contingent upon executive grace. That, the
Constitution does not permit.
45) Thus, for what has been observed, considered and
analyzed hereinabove, t he respondents are directed to grant
to the petitioner all consequential benefits flowing from
judgment dated 07.02.2017, including release of pending
grades, notional promotion, seniority correction, pay fixation
ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 23 of 24

and arrears, subject only to lawful deductions strictly in
accordance with service rules and excluding any reliance
upon quashed or unsubstantiated allegations. The aforesaid
exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks
from the date a copy of this judgment served upon the
respondents.



(Javed Iqbal Wani)
Judge
Srinagar
24.02.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secretary”
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes

Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes

ROBSW No.4/2024 in
CCP(S) No.363/2022 c/w CCP(S) No.363/2022 Page 24 of 24