Entitlement to Withheld Salary and Increments During Judicial Stay of Relieving Orders Must Be Considered Legally

The applicant, a Physical Teacher appointed in 2016 and subsequently selected as an Associate National Cadet Corps Officer (ANO), challenged the repeated attempts by respondents to relieve him from his posting at Government Higher Secondary School, Ajas

Despite obtaining stay orders from the Tribunal (O.A. 979/2022 and O.A. 402/2025) and a status quo order from the Hon’ble High Court of JK (WP(C) No. 58/2023), the applicant alleged that Respondent No. 6 withheld his salary for three distinct periods (totaling 96 days) and stopped three periodical increments for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the release of the withheld salary, increments, and NCC sports bills

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to release the withheld salary and periodical increments for the periods the applicant remained in service under judicial stay orders.

2. Whether the O.A. can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the application as a formal representation for administrative redressal.

The court applied the principle of administrative responsiveness and the "Right to Salary" for duties performed, especially when service is continued under the protection of judicial orders

The judgment... relies on the discretionary powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to direct authorities to consider representations in accordance with the merits and entitlements of the employee

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had remained at his place of posting due to various interim stay orders passed by judicial forums

The core of the grievance lies in the non-payment of emoluments for the duration of this "protected" service. However, instead of adjudicating on the factual calculations of the 96 days of salary or the specific eligibility for increments, the Tribunal decided that the administrative authorities must first evaluate the applicant’s claims

By directing the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation, the Tribunal shifted the burden to the executive to verify the "merits of the case and the entitlements of the applicant" while ensuring the process is conducted "in accordance with law"

It directed the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation and pass appropriate orders regarding the release of salary and increments within a prescribed legal framework

The T.A. No. 20/2026 was disposed of along with all connected matters, with no order as to costs