V.K. Choudhary And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 80 j&K

                                                                            116


                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                           AT JAMMU

                                                WP(C) No. 2008/2020
                                                CM Nos. 7789 & 7790/2020

V.K. Choudhary and ors.                               ....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

                  Through :- Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate.


                 V/s
UT of J&K and ors.                                               ....Respondent(s)

                  Through :-    Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, GA.

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
Coram:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

08.02.2021

1. This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 25.08.2020

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.A No. 061/531/2020 and M.A

No.061/520/2020. It is alleged that the Tribunal while passing the order did not

consider the facts in entirety and proceeded to pass the order impugned, which

was not sufficient to protect the interest of the petitioners.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are

working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in their substantive capacity, have

been denied the benefit of seniority for working against higher positions,

whereas benefits had been conferred upon the private respondents even when

most of them were junior to the petitioners, but have been made to work against

the higher positions of Sheep Development Officer Category-V, District Sheep

Husbandry Officer Class-IV, as also against the post of Deputy Director.

3. It was urged that the incharge arrangement is nothing, but an attempt

to confer undue benefits without making promotions on substantive basis on the

basis of seniority.

4. It was also urged that even for purposes of making incharge

arrangements, the seniority of the officers ought to have been considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that in making

the incharge arrangements against the higher post, not only the rule of seniority

had been violated, but the arrangements were also in violation of Rule 19 (4) of

the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, as also the Apex Court

judgment in the case of "Suraj Parkash Gupta Vs. State of J&K and ors.,

reported in AIR 2000 SC 2386", which specifically laid down that no incharge

arrangements be extended beyond the period of 09 months.

6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it can be seen that

the Tribunal on the very first date of hearing on 25.08.2020 had admitted the

OA and while issuing notice had also directed the official respondents that any

assignment of additional charge or any arrangement of incharge basis would be

strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and in particular

Sub-rule 4 of the Rule 25 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (in short, „the Rules of 1956'). The order further

directs that it could not resort to the assignment of such duties to the officers in

violation of their seniority.

7. On a bare perusal of the order impugned, it, therefore, thus transpires

that the Tribunal had applied mind to the issue at hand and directed the

respondents to strictly comply with the provisions of Rule 25 Sub-Rule 4 of the

Rules of 1956, which, inter-alia, envisages that the temporary promotion made

in public interest owing to an emergency and in no case, should exceed three

months on each occasion. In our opinion, this takes care of the grievance of the

petitioners, as the petitioners‟ main grievance appears to be that the incharge

arrangements have not only been perpetuated, but further arrangements have

been made in higher positions, conferring undue benefits on the private

respondents. Although the petitioner does not feel satisfied with the order in its

entirety and perhaps wanted the Tribunal to stay all interim arrangements,

which have been continued and against which positions, the private respondents

were working, yet we feel that in the estimation of the Tribunal, that stage has

not arisen at the very outset and, therefore, while admitting the OA, the

directions were issued to a limited extent. We also feel that if we were to

undertake an exercise to consider every aspect of the so called illegality

committed by the official respondents for purposes of determining the extent of

interim relief, which ought to have been granted to the petitioners herein, it

would make the proceedings before the Tribunal academic. We feel that that

such course of action may not be just and proper. We find no perversity in the

order impugned and leave it to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for

disposal on merits.

8. Disposed of accordingly along with connected CM(s).

                                     (Puneet Gupta)                (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                         Judge                             Judge



           JAMMU
           08.02.2021
           (Ram Krishan)




RAM KRISHAN
2021.02.10 13:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document