Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 940 j&K/2
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2021
Serial No. 76
Before Notice List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1652/2021
CM No. 5519/2021
Abdul Majeed Lone
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr. Sheikh Umar Farooq, Advocate
V/s
Govt. of J&K and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. Shah Aamir, AAG CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge (ORDER) 21.08.2021
By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks release of
salary in favour of the petitioner from February, 2019 till date with
further direction to the respondents to release the salary in future also.
2/- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the
submissions made.
Admittedly, the petitioner is 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner
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.
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 petitioner approach the CAT, Bench, Jammu, for
decision.
Disposed of along with connected CM(s).
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge
SRINAGAR 21.08.2021 "Mohammad Yasin Dar"
MOHAMMAD YASIN DAR 2021.08.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!