Facts
The applicant, a Temporary Daily Labourer (TDL) working since 2012 in the Power Development Department (PDD), Pulwama, was placed under preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) via Order No. 47/DMP/PSA dated 12.11.2024.
Source reference: p. 1-2This detention prevented him from attending his duties from 11.11.2024 until 16.12.2025.
Source reference: p. 2On 16.12.2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir quashed the detention order, nullifying the legal basis for his absence.
Source reference: p. 2Despite submitting representations on 31.12.2025 and subsequent internal communications between the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer on 19.01.2026, the respondents failed to permit the applicant to resume his duties.
Source reference: p. 2The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider the applicant's request to resume duties following the quashing of his preventive detention order.
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 052. Whether the period of absence caused by an illegal detention order can be treated as involuntary for the purpose of resuming public service.
Source reference: p. 2-3 / para. 02Law Applied
The court relied on the principles of administrative justice and the right to consideration of representations in service law.
Source reference: p. 3-4 / para. 05-06Specifically, it applied the doctrine that when a detention order—which served as the sole impediment to duty—is quashed by a High Court, the resulting absence is deemed involuntary.
Source reference: p. 2The court exercised its power to direct administrative authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" in accordance with applicable service rules and the merits of the specific case.
Source reference: p. 3-4 / para. 05-06Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicant's absence from 11.11.2024 to 16.12.2025 was not a voluntary abandonment of service but was "involuntary and occasioned by an order" of preventive detention.
Source reference: p. 2Since the High Court quashed said detention, the legal barrier to the applicant's employment was removed.
Source reference: p. 2The Tribunal observed that the applicant had already initiated administrative remedies by submitting representations (Annexure-II) and that internal departmental communication (Annexure-IV) regarding his status had already occurred.
Source reference: p. 3Rather than adjudicating on the final merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel the respondents to formally address these grievances.
Source reference: p. 3The court emphasized that the respondents must evaluate the applicant's entitlements and the assertions made in his O.A. within the framework of existing legal rules.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage without commenting on the merits.
It directed the respondents to treat the Original Application and the annexed representation (Annexure-II) as formal representations.
Source reference: p. 3The respondents were ordered to consider and decide the matter in light of the communication dated 19.01.2026 and applicable rules.
Source reference: p. 3-4The final holding commanded the respondents to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" regarding the applicant's resumption of duties within four weeks of receiving the order.
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 06No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
showkat ahmad khanvsPOWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in