J&K employees are not entitled to higher pay grades after 12 years’ stagnation absent applicable service rules.

The petitioner had filed SWP No. 28/2016 seeking, inter alia, placement in higher pay scales under SRO 18 of 1998 and SRO 93 of 2009, promotion to the post of Assistant Work Manager/Foreman, and consequential monetary benefits.

The writ petition was disposed of on 15 October 2024 by declaring the earlier rejection order ineffective and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order regarding the petitioner’s placement in the relevant pay scales and payment of differential arrears.

The petitioner thereafter sought review, contending that the judgment had not considered his claim for two higher grades on account of stagnation for approximately 25 years, allegedly payable after 12 years and again after 24 years of service without promotion.

During the pendency of the review petition, the petitioner’s contempt petition was disposed of after the respondents filed a consideration order dated 12 November 2025, stating that the applicable benefits had already been extended to him under the relevant rules and Government Orders.

The Court applied the directions contained in SRO 18 of 1998 and SRO 93 of 2009 concerning placement in revised/relevant pay scales.

It recognised the applicable Jammu & Kashmir service arrangement under which in-situ promotions or higher pay grades are available upon stagnation after every nine years.

The Court held that the judgments in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surender Kumar Parmar and State of Tripura v. K. K. Roy, which concerned the service rules applicable in Himachal Pradesh and Tripura and recognised entitlement to successive higher grades after 12 years of stagnation, could not be automatically applied in the absence of a corresponding rule in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

A review petition cannot succeed merely to introduce a claim unsupported by the applicable service rules, particularly where the claim has subsequently been considered by the competent authority.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim had already been considered by the respondents pursuant to the original judgment, resulting in the consideration order dated 12 November 2025.

Since the contempt proceedings were closed after the Court found apparent compliance with the judgment, the review petition had become infructuous to the extent it challenged non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim.

In any event, the Court held that the petitioner had already received in-situ promotions in the form of higher pay grades for stagnation after every nine years, as reflected in the record.

The petitioner failed to identify any Jammu & Kashmir rule conferring an additional higher grade after 12 and 24 years of stagnation.

The Supreme Court precedents relied upon by him were distinguishable because they arose under the service rules of Himachal Pradesh and Tripura and therefore did not establish an entitlement under the J&K service regime.

It held that the petitioner was not entitled to two additional higher grades after 12 and 24 years of stagnation because no such entitlement was shown under the applicable Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir rules, while the benefits available for stagnation after every nine years had already been granted.

The petitioner was left at liberty to challenge the consideration order dated 12 November 2025 in appropriate proceedings.