Case: Lpa No.186/2019 vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 225 j&K/2

                                                                   Sr. No.210

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT SRINAGAR


     CJ Court


     Case: LPA No.186/2019, CM No.4736/2019

                                                 ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
     Mohammad Maqbool Bhat & anr.

             Through: Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate.

                                      Vs.
                                                          ....Respondent(s)
     Sheri Kashmir University Agriculture

             Through: None.


     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

25.02.2021

1. Heard Sh. Shuja ul Haq, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. The delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained by the

appellants. Accordingly, the condonation delay application is allowed.

3. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and

order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge deciding the writ

petition (SWP) No.2276/2011.

4. The appellants had filed the writ petition seeking direction upon the

respondents to give the same treatment to them as has been given to their

senior colleagues and to pay them the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as admissible

to the selection grade of the post of Field Cum Laboratory Assistant/

Livestock Assistant with effect from 25.02.1996 on their completion of seven

years of service in the senior scale of pay. The appellants also challenged the

communication dated 07.03.2011 by which their representation was rejected.

5. The writ court by the impugned judgment and order held that the writ

petition is bereft of merit and appellants are not entitled to any benefit but left

it open to the appellants to move an appropriate representation before the

respondents to seek redressal of their grievance by making a mention therein

in an intelligible way of the right available and the grounds on which it is

stated to exist. The said representation was directed to be decided by the

respondents in accordance with law.

6. In a way, the writ court in the facts and circumstances of the case

refused to exercise the jurisdiction and left the prayer of the appellants as

made in the writ petition to be dealt with by the respondents on their

representation with regard to parity they were claiming on the basis of the

services of their senior colleagues.

7. The claim of parity as aforesaid necessarily involves consideration of

factual aspects and was, as such, rightly left to be decided by the respondents

on verification of the records.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that the

impugned judgment and order requires any interference on the appellate side

and dispose of this appeal with the observation that any finding or observation

made in the impugned judgment would not come in the way of the appellants

in getting their representation decided by the respondents and the respondents

would be free to decide it on its own merit uninfluenced by any of the

observations made by the writ court or the fact that the writ petition was

dismissed by treating it as it stood disposed of.

9. It is expected that representation, if any is made by the appellants,

would be considered most expeditiously preferably within six months from

the date it is submitted.

                                              (TASHI RABSTAN)                (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                                      JUDGE                   CHIEF JUSTICE
                     Srinagar
                     25.02.2021
                     Abdul Qayoom, PS




ABDUL QAYOOM LONE
2021.02.26 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document