Claims for retrospective pay scale revision must be decided in accordance with settled judicial precedents.

The applicants, various members of the clerical staff within the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, filed these applications to challenge SRO 333 dated 02.08.2018.

They sought to quash the SRO to the extent that it granted pay revision benefits prospectively rather than retrospectively.

The applicants argued for retrospective application notionally from 01.01.1996 and monetarily from 19.02.2003, seeking parity with other cadres such as the Accounts and Animal/Sheep Husbandry departments.

This claim was based on minutes of a meeting held on 15.09.2011 between a High-Powered Group of the J&K Government and employee unions regarding pay anomalies.

During the hearing, the applicants' counsel limited the prayer to a direction for the respondents to consider the claims in light of existing judicial precedents.

1. Whether SRO 333 dated 02.08.2018 should be granted retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 (notionally) and 19.02.2003 (monetarily) to resolve pay disparities in the clerical cadre.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a time-bound consideration of their claims based on prior judgments of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The legal principles established in Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh All Departments Clerical Staff Association v. State of J&K & Ors. (TA No. 861/2020), which quashed the prospective application of SRO 333.

The precedent set in Shamsher Singh and Ors. v. UT of J&K and Ors. (OA No. 753/2025), which addressed similar grievances regarding pay revision and retrospective benefits.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the pay revision claim anew but focused on the procedural request for parity in treatment based on prior rulings.

The applicants’ counsel argued that the grievances were identical to those already decided by the Tribunal in TA No. 861/2020 and OA No. 753/2025.

The court observed that the applicants would be satisfied if their cases were decided in the light of these specific judgments.

By directing the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims within the framework of existing precedents, the Tribunal ensured administrative consistency and judicial economy, bypassing a full re-litigation of the validity of SRO 333’s prospective nature.

The court ordered that this exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.