Naiyeem Ahmad Shah And Ors vs Ut Of Jk And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 426 j&K/2

                                                          Serial No. 122

                                                            Suppl. list


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                      AT SRINAGAR

                          (Through Virtual Mode)

                                                   WP(C) No. 626/2021
                                                   CM No. 1881/2021


Naiyeem Ahmad Shah and Ors.
                                                            ..... Petitioner(s)
                                 Through: -
                    Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, Advocate

                                       V/s
UT of JK and Ors.
                                                          ..... Respondent(s)

Through: -

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge (ORDER) 12.04.2021

The claim of the petitioners has reference to release of salary against

the post of Teacher Grade-II, which is stated to be withheld by the

Education Department. Petitioners claim to have been appointed as

Teachers on the recommendation of District Level Screening Committee

and approved by the Divisional Level Selection Committee, which has

been conveyed by the Director School Education, Kashmir vide letter No.

DSEK/SSA/RET/Tr/G-II/49-51/2019 dated 06.03.2019, in the pay level-5

(Rs.29200-92300) w.e.f. 01/09/2018, by the Chief Education Officer of

different districts. The matter squarely arisen out of service contract,

therefore, amenable to the jurisdiction of the CAT, Bench, Jammu.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the

submissions made.

Admittedly, the petitioners are Government Employee in the Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 323-A and Article 323-B for the

establishment of various Tribunals was introduced in the Constitution by

its (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Under Article 323-A of the Constitution,

Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was established. Article 323-

A (2) (d) excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts, except that of the Supreme

Court under Article 136, with respect to the dispute or complaints referred

to in clause (1).

In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitoiners, it has become necessary to take a look at the relevant

provisions of law governing the subject. In the first instance, clause (b) of

sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is

taken note of hereunder:

"1. Short title, extend and commencement.-....

(b) in so far as it relates to Administrative Tribunals for States, to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir."

The plain reading of the provision of law makes it clear that the

same talks of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which now stands formed

into two different Union Territories, therefore, the submission made by

the learned counsel that the Act is not applicable to the Jammu and

Kashmir is unfounded, therefore, rejected.

The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

in view of the Full Court judgment of this Court delivered in case titled

Kuldip Khuda & Ors v. Masud Ahmad Choudhary & Ors, the jurisdiction

of this Court is protected, is not only misconceived but misdirected also,

in that, the judgment rendered in the case is passed prior to the abrogation

of Article 370 of the Constitution in terms whereof the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh were a State with

special privileges. It needs no emphasis to record that on the application

of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-organization Act, 2019, all the Central

Laws have been made applicable to the erstwhile State of Jammu and

Kashmir. Therefore, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel is no

more applicable.

From the above discussion what emerges is that this Court, cannot

entertain a petition raising a service dispute of the employee in the service

of the Government of India or the Government of Union Territory of

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Since the petition is listed before this Court for the first time and

the remedy is already available for consideration, therefore, this

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, having no merit, shall

stand rejected.

The court, in view of above, holds that this Court has no jurisdiction

to entertain the petition and the same be, instead, presented before the

CAT Bench, Jammu that has the jurisdiction.

Petitioners are given liberty to approach the CAT, Bench, Jammu for

the relief claimed in this petition with direction to Registrar CAT Bench,

Jammu to list the matter before the Bench as and when the petitioners

approach the CAT, Bench, Jammu, for decision.

Disposed of along with connected CM(s).

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge

SRINAGAR 12.04.2021 "Mohammad Yasin Dar"

MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2021.04.15 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document